Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Harald Alvestrand) Discuss
Discuss (2005-02-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Joel Halpern's review seems to point out some issues with scoping of this document - use of rather grandiose titles of some sections without the content to support it. Comments solicited.
Comment (2005-02-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART Some wording seems improvable - full review in document log
(Thomas Narten) Yes
(Mark Townsley) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection
Joel is OK with the new version and so am I.
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen) No Objection
Comment (2005-03-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I am not so sure if this is a "framework" or if it is more an overview of all sorts of management aspects of L3VPN. I have had simialr feelings woth earlier "framework" documents, so I will leave it to the responsible AD to see if the title might better be changed. Section 1.1 (inlcuding reference to RFC2119) seems completely useless, becasue these terms are not used in this document (as far as I can tell) I see IPSec spelles with capital S. I am sure the sec ADs want it spelled as IPsec! Section 4. I would not speak of "information bases" but instead about "management information" ormaybe "management objects" I would change "standard MIB" into "standards track MIB Module" sect 4.1 again speaks about "standard protocols such as..." Much better to speak of "standards track protocols..." But even then, NetConf is target for standards track but is still in WG last Call. I doubt that RFC2629 is a NORMATIVE reference!