[GSMP] IESG review of: draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-06.txt

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Fri, 11 July 2003 09:38 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22938 for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19auLr-0000Ot-Ok for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:03 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6B9c35p001536 for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19auLr-0000Oh-J7 for gsmp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22930 for <gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19auLo-00049y-00 for gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:00 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19auLn-00049u-00 for gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:59 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19auLo-0000OK-U9; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:38:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19auLN-0000Kp-IJ for gsmp@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22911 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19auLK-00049g-00 for gsmp@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:30 -0400
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161] helo=ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19auLJ-00049V-00 for gsmp@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:37:29 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h6B9auh13353 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:36:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NR1X0Y86>; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:36:55 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155020171E6@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Gsmp (E-mail)" <gsmp@ietf.org>
Cc: "Allison Mankin (E-mail)" <mankin@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:36:45 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [GSMP] IESG review of: draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-06.txt
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol <gsmp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gsmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

The IESG yesterday discussed this documment.
With the following RFC-Editor note the document can be
approved. Before we send out that approval, we'd like
to give GSMP WG a chance to review and let us know if
this is OK. 

Pls check if I did correctly expand DCN

RFC-Editor notes:

1) Third paragraph of section 2.5 - expand DCN.
   OLD:
     used in legacy DCN environments that use OSI CLNP.
   NEW:
     used in legacy Data Communication Network (DCN) environments
     that use OSI CLNP.

2) For section 2.5 -  Add a final paragraph:

   The security risks of additional non-IP encapsulations MUST be
   described, since the mandatory to implement mechanism of IPsec
   is not available for these control channels, as in the RFC 3293
   Ethernet and ATM cases.  It is in scope to perform risk analysis
   and describe if mechanisms for link-level security mitigate the
   risk.


3) reword text in section 3.3

   OLD:
     A retransmission policy should be used if no reply is 
     received for a  message with "AckAll" set.
   NEW:
     A retransmission policy with a well-designed exponential
     backoff should be used if no reply is received for a
     message with "AckAll" set.

Bert and Allison

_______________________________________________
GSMP mailing list
GSMP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp