Re: [lmap] comments on draft-eardley-lmap-framework-02

[<[e-mail]>]

> 2. I have a problem imagining what the 'Initialiser' is. Is it a task
> (running where?) aiming to ensure consistent configuration of
> controllers in an LMAP system. Or another 'box' in the architecture,
> part of an hierarchical system, a 'box' not represented because it is
> out of the LMAP scope? If the later I would prefer to add it to the
> diagram, maybe together with the other non-LMAP entities (Subscriber
> Parameter Database, Results Database) so that we can have a full
> picture of the whole system, with clear representation of what is in
> scope for LMAP.

The latter - a 'box' outside lmap scope. 
In the next version I'll battle with asci art to add a pic showing all the non-lmap entities. For a preview, see the framework slides (in wg meeting, similar ones in BoF)

One example, the 'box' could be an ACS which uses TR-069 to configure (ie lmap-initialise) a Broadband Forum compliant home gateway. Another example might be that the Measurement Agent is an app downloaded to your tablet, with pre-configuration information coded into the app. 

> 
> 3. Do we also need to include in the diagram (and discussion) some kind
> a certificate authority to ensure that controllers and MAs, MAs and
> peers, MA and collectors, are authenticated to each other, as the
> security considerations section demands.

I can add this - another 'box' outside lmap scope

> 
> 4. In a couple of instances OAM is wrongly expanded as Operations,
> Administrations and Management, and not as per BCP 161.

Thanks. (I actually did try to identify the correct ietf phrase and abbreviation - but failed!)
> 
> 5. In Section 5.1 there are a few instances where some procedures or
> blocks are being defined as 'out (or beyond) the scope of the IETF'. It
> would be more correct to say 'out of scope for LMAP' as we can make
> statements about what we do (or do not do) in LMAP but not for the IETF
> as a whole.

Ok

Thanks
phil