FW: your comments on draft-ietf-ppvpn-framework-08.txt

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

I said to Alex I would not block based on the below.
But I noticed that some other IESGers made similar comments.

W.r.t. the IPR section, I believe the minutes of our last telechat
state that we decided that IPR section should be as for stds track
docs. 

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: vrijdag 9 mei 2003 13:57
To: Alex Zinin; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: RE: your comments on draft-ietf-ppvpn-framework-08.txt


W.r.t. to my comments (many of the below were
not mine) I am OK to let it pass... but:

I still see these concerns (but won't block anymore):

- IPR section is NOT according to the sorts of IPR
  sections that we normally see based on RFC2026 sect 10.4
  2 paragraphs are missing

These were my comments with additional notes:

> > bert comments
> > 
> > - Has some 9 or 10 people on front page ??!!
> 
> done
> 
> > - Has twice (page 18), once on page 23
> > 
> >     The customer management function may use a combination of SNMP
> >     manager, directory service (e.g., LDAP [RFC1777] [RFC2251]), or
> >     proprietary network management system.
> >  
> >   RFC1777 is HISTORIC, so os this wise?
> > 
> >   In section 4.2.1.2 it even claims that LDAP [RFC1777] is 
> standadard:
> > 
> >   used to distribute it.  LDAP [RFC1777] is a standard directory
> >   protocol which makes it possible to use a common 
> mechanism for both
> > 
> 
> done
> 
> > - I see them use "SNMPv3" but also "SNMP V3"
> >   That would be better done consistent with "SNMPv3"
> > 
> > - I find it amusing/strange to read on top of page 64:
> >     NMS system.  This must be achieved using standard 
> protocols such as
> >     SNMP, XML, or LDAP.  Use of proprietary command-line 
> interfaces is
> >     highly undesirable for this task, as they do not lend 
> themselves to
> >     standard representations of managed objects.
> >   And then a few paragraphs down on same page:
> >     employed.  Examples of how this can be achieved include 
> encrypted
> >     telnet sessions for CLI-based management, IPsec 
> tunnels, or SNMP V3
> >     encryption for SNMP-based management.
> >   That is, the first para strongly discourages use of CLI while the
> >   other para lists as first item how to secure CLI-based management.
> 
> not fixed, but I don't know whether we can push back on this point
> 
I keep finding it strange.  But I won't fight this fight.
as I said before:
   Oh well...

> >   Oh well..
> > 
> > - Is this the new form for an IPR statement??:
> >   Intellectual Property
> > 
> >   Intellectual property rights may have been claimed with regard to
> >   some of the techniques and mechanisms described in this framework
> >   document.  For more information consult the online list of claimed
> >   rights maintained by the IETF at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
Not done correctly yet (I think). They omitted 2 paragraphs

> > I always wonder when I read these sort of docs:
> > 
> >   MMMmmm... is this a FRAMEWORK ???
> >   Or just an overview of all sorts of different ways to do things
> 
> generic...
> 
But the title suggests/claims more than what it is.
I guess your answer means to say: This is a generci problem that
we see many times. I agree... does that mean we should just let it
go? I won't block, this is your WG, not mine.

Bert