draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-06.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Just so my comments are recorded.
As far as I can tell rev 6 is still the latest revision

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: vrijdag 9 mei 2003 13:57
To: Alex Zinin; Allison Mankin; Steve Bellovin; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: RE: RE: IESG comments on L3 PPVPN requirements


So which revision has it fixed? Latest I have is rev 06.

My comments were:
> 2003-03-06 - bert comments
> 
> RFC1777 is historic and reference shoudl be updated
> 
> PROPOSED CHANGE: Replace reference to RFC 1777 with RFC 3377.
> 
I still see RFC1777 in the text (in fact as a citation).
What they did is that they removed it from the References section,
so now [RFC1777] citation is a dangling pointer.


> But should we really be "pushing" PIB for management?
> i.e. change "(MIBs or PIBs)" to "(e.g. MIB modules)"
> 
> PROPOSED CHANGE: In section 7.6, replace "management or 
> policy information
> bases (MIBs or PIBS)" with "management information base (MIB) modules"
> 
OK with me, but may offend "policy" people. Policy info can also
be managed via MIB. And so I had left that piece of text in and 
changed "MIBs or PIBs" into "e.g. MIB modules" so as to not offend
anyone. But as I said, OK with me.