Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-01

"B. Khasnabish" <vumip1@gmail.com> Sat, 01 August 2015 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <vumip1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC44E1ACF17; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3I5-4yHMoY0; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E75C1ACEE7; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by labks4 with SMTP id ks4so9784907lab.0; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=16mfltv6wqbpjQZXGuCXcgtfXOKyrj5EgHYlqObhBlk=; b=aZ9pSCw4r0RW8iOKFyju9zJgWjO6Rgo3lMfyKLappsMcsEn/xIB0c3rsrD7kaIS/p5 UwzHMVqp56M1ordqhYd2yDomC8oeF8xuTB8VKJkMdpBtAqZFiy3pqQ1fNYFbU5VjYA+m ve3BU2nVwrwOhuZ8YWMKz48uO8laAAsae1Kz/KC7RZ5KtlUHn40KXH+9FTr2562md+Gd CspQd8o6uNSqMWkqAHT+SmnE/13eOINpC7Tfw24p5RZLUwwhy3XmIbs+NHdUxteAeBQK 9qRFATd9+Ca52O0555LnbzhD0LVS59AIUGmr6NdbM2BzdBggvoE6Fc5r9gU7kWxTPW9v q6dQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.37.37 with SMTP id v5mr6903004laj.11.1438407094656; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.145.139 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcYBcXmV1unH-DW5cmmvFS8OLFg09La4Vd8QUBYc9gxkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcYBcXmV1unH-DW5cmmvFS8OLFg09La4Vd8QUBYc9gxkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "B. Khasnabish" <vumip1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 01:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CANtnpwgfEULxNubt0z_giUM9SMvoBd2rr381XdyPwqh4K9uRBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b9aaeb63ce051c393f97
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/gc7xVEYgpbZ_DEhqnDCHy6MtgGI>
Cc: "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-01
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 05:31:38 -0000

​Hi Alia,

Thanks a lot. Yes, we'll do the updates based on
your suggestions, and publish the revised draft soon.

Best.

Bhumip
​
​


On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bhumip, Evangelos, and Jamal,
>
> Thanks for your work on this draft. As is customary, I have done my AD
> review of the draft before asking that it go forward to IETF Last Call.
>
> I have only a few quibbles, so I have advanced this to IETF Last Call.  It
> is on the IESG telechat on Sept 3.    Please do respond and update the
> draft during IETF Last Call.  As you well know, having authors who are
> extremely responsive helps greatly with getting these final steps done.
>
> Minor quibbles:
>
> 1) In Sec. 4.4.3, two of the capabilities are described as placeholders.
> Can you please clarify what the expected standardized behavior is?  I
> imagine that the capabilities are filled out as described - though with
> unstandardized information.
>
> 2) In Sec. 4.2, could you please provide a reference to the syslog
> severity levels?  For instance, the IANA registry (
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/syslog-parameters/syslog-parameters.xhtml#syslog-parameters-2
> ) and/or RFC 3164 would be lovely.
>
> 3) In the Security Considerations section, a few words about why it is ok
> to trust a CE to create a connection to another CE would be useful.
>
> Thanks,
> Alia
>