Got it. Thanks.
We (the authors) will talk it over and figure out the best location to
reference to cover that and how.
Again, thanks for the review. Point noted on the LC date.
Rodney
On 11/28/10 11:43 AM, Roni Even wrote:
Rodney,
What I meant and I think Joel got it right is to add informative reference to
the manuals/documents where you can see how to write policy similar to the ones
in the appendix.
BTW: You can make all changes after the IETF LC is finished (December 3rd)
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rodunn(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:09 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: Roni Even; General Area Review Team; IETF-Discussion list; draft-
ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-
plane-04
Joel,
I had responded offline to Roni to get clarification on the reference
part. I wasn't clear as to what what the informative reference should
be.
Here was my response:
"rd> The idea was that the text in the draft is normative but the
configuration examples are not as they are many different ways for the
configurations to be constructed to accomplish the same output. While
some are more optimized from a number of lines perspective they didn't
map clearly enough between the two examples or as clearly illustrate
the
example logic.
I'm not sure what you meant by "where the correct syntax is specified".
The syntax used is correct just there are various ways it can be
configured. Some actually come down to personal preference so there is
no "correct" in the sense of implementation uniqueness."
Can you clarify it for me?
I updated the other two points and went with "active" on the second.
Thanks,
Rodney
On 11/28/10 11:05 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Active is fine, turned on And always on have different meanings
however.
I think we can fix appendix a with the appropriate informative
reference
as specified.
Joel's widget number 2
On Nov 28, 2010, at 7:39, "Roni
Even"<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Hi,
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>http://wiki.t
ools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-11-28
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-3
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational
RFC.
There are some nits and minor issue.
Major issues:
Minor issues: The example in appendix A are using syntax with no
reference. The text says that this is non normative text but I think
that it will be good to have a reference to the document where the
correct syntax is specified
Nits/editorial comments:
1.The first sentence of section 1 "Modern router architecture design
maintains a strict separation of forwarding and routing control
plane
hardware and software." Talks about routing control plane while the
next sentence and the rest of the document calls it "router control
plane"
2.In section 2 third paragraph "Additionally, there may be other
vendor or implementation specific protection mechanisms that are on
by
default or always on. ". I suggest changing the text "are on" and
"always on" maybe to "active" or "turned on".
Thanks
Roni Even
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf