Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management
RFC 4176
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) Discuss
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.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes
(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) Yes
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
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!
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Joel is OK with the new version and so am I.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection