Subject: Re: [Isms] working group last call on draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:43:47 +0100

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:03:00PM +0100, Juergen Quittek wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> This is the working group last call on the "Transport Subsystem for
> the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" to be found at
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt>.
> 
> The authors and the chairs think that this document is mature enough
> for last call.  Since the holidays are coming, the last call period is
> not two weeks as usual, but three weeks.
> 
> Please do review the document and post your comments on this list until
> January 8, 2007.  Please also post to the list if you have read the document
> and are fine with it.  It is very useful to know how many people have read
> the document.

I like to remind you that we have a last call running. Please read
<draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt> and send us your comments or at least an
indication that you read the document and have no specific comments.

Thanks,

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:49:41 -0500

I have read this document and think that it's in pretty good shape.
Some specific comments follow:

Document Header:

Will this document update existing RFCs, e.g. 3411 or 3417?  There is no
"Updates:" field in the header.

Section 2.

I would drop the metaphor of the "gun".  The metaphor of the "guard" is
fine without the resort to firearms.  Just a "political correctness"
nit.

I think it would help to further elaborate the relationship of this
document to RFC 3411 (Architecture) and 3417 (Transport Mappings).

Section 3.1.1

In the last sentence, since there are three alternatives listed, I don't
think the correct wording is "either".

Section 3.2.1

Could paragraphs 3 - 6 be eliminated?  This seems to be reviewing design
issues/choices for SNMPv3 that one would assume to be documented
elsewhere.

In paragraph 8, motivation is spelled wrong.

Section 3.2.1.2

Typo in bullet item 2).  Superfluous asterisk.

Section 3.2.3

In paragraph 6, "to have an security" should be "to have a security".

Section 4

This section indicates that the diagrams are incomplete.  That would
seem to be a "comment magnet" in the absence of an explanation of why
the incompleteness of the diagrams does not impact the completeness of
the document.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:28:17 +0100

> indication that you read the document and have no specific comments.

As originally announced, the WG last call for this document did end
yesterday. We like to thank all those reviewers who have already sent
their comments to the mailing list and the chairs.

The chairs solicited a number of additional reviews and some of the
contacted reviewers asked for some additional time. Given the vacation
period, we gave them some more time to complete their reviews (until
the end of the week) and hence we will in general accept additional
reviews until the end of the week.

Next week, we will start working through the comments. Of course,
people can comment on the comments already now - you do not have to
wait until next week. ;-)

/js

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:20:56 +0100

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt>.

[...]
 
> and are fine with it.  It is very useful to know how many people have read

The 1st WG last call on <draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-05.txt> is complete. We
received several good reviews and many concrete suggestions for
improvements - many thanks to the reviewers. We will produce an
updated version before the ID cutoff to address the issues raised
during the last call.

/js