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

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

> 
> Bert:
> 
> > > >                     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.
> 
> I do not really care about placement.  I did not think that Appendix B was 
> really to be included in the final RFC because it also included other history.
> 
That other history is also the diffs/changes between earlier RFCs... not
diffs/changes at the I-D level. So the intention is to keep it all in the
RFC-to-be.

> > >    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.
> 
> How about ".. USM, with authentication and privacy (also known as 
> confidentiality)."
> 
That seem quite acceptable to me. Can we do so with an RFC-Editor note?

> In RFC 2828, there is a discussion about the difference 
> between privacy and confidentiality.
> 
Thanks for the ptr.

Bert
> Russ
>