Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management
RFC 4176

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' **)
No email
send info
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

Comment (2005-03-24)
No email
send info
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' **)
No email
send info
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!