RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2 - Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework to BCP

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

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:russ.housley@verizon.net]
> Sent: dinsdag 10 juni 2003 20:26
> To: IESG Secretary; Internet Engineering Steering Group
> Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2 - 
> Coexistence between
> Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network
> Management Framework to BCP
> 
> 
> 
> >                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain
> >Russ Housley        [   ]     [   ]       [ X ]      [   ]
> 
>    Since this document will obsolete RFC 2576, it would be very helpful if 
> the document contained a summary of the changes which are implemented by 
> this document.  I assume that Appendix B is not intended to be included in 
> the final RFC.  I think that the change summary should be at a much higher 
> level than Appendix B.
> 
Mmmm... when we still had Scott on the IESG, he always wanted it in
the appendix material as far as I remember. Anyway, it weas in appendix
B when we had rfc2576, which obsoleted 1908, so we are/were just following 
what was already in an earlier RFC. I do know that in quite a few RFCs,
such a list of updates occurs in an appendix.

>    In section 8, the document says: "... USM, with authentication and 
> privacy."  Please change "privacy" to "confidentiality."
> 
Well, we have Authentication and Privcacy protocols in USM. That is how
they have been known since oh mid 90s or so.

So we have a authNoPriv and a authPriv way of communicating.
So I think that sticking to privacy is better given the history and
the name of the fields and bits that we use.

Hope you can agree,
Bert
>