[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Evaluation: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2 - Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Man agement Framework to BCP
- To: "Russ Housley (E-mail)" <housley@vigilsec.com>
- Subject: FW: Evaluation: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2 - Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Man agement Framework to BCP
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:50:49 +0200
- Cc: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
I did comment below your comments.... even though
the first few lines may seem to indicate I did not
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2003 0:44
To: Russ Housley; 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 Man
agement Framework to BCP
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
>