IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Netconf] Re:  WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-t ls-04.txt

badra@isima.fr Sat, 27 September 2008 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8663B3A6804; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A523A6804 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.192
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.809, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R+4Y6BLF3F4Y for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sp.isima.fr (sp.isima.fr [193.55.95.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4EE3A67B0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.isima.fr (www-data@www.isima.fr [193.55.95.79]) by sp.isima.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m8RIJ320921660; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:19:03 +0100
Received: from 88.164.98.77 (SquirrelMail authenticated user badra) by www.isima.fr with HTTP; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:18:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <62308.88.164.98.77.1222535885.squirrel@www.isima.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20080927161432.GA918@elstar.local>
References: <20080927090622.GA431@elstar.local> <59304.88.164.98.77.1222523373.squirrel@www.isima.fr> <20080927154119.GA803@elstar.local> <61122.88.164.98.77.1222530809.squirrel@www.isima.fr> <20080927161432.GA918@elstar.local>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:18:05 +0200
From: badra@isima.fr
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sp.isima.fr [193.55.95.1]); Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:19:03 +0100 (WEST)
Cc: � <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Netconf] Re:  WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-t ls-04.txt
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 05:53:29PM +0200, badra@isima.fr wrote:
>
>> Well, I think we can find the same text in all "Application over TLS"
>> documents, and there was no objection on integrating such text in those
>> documents, which can IMO improve the readability.
>
> This does not really answer my question. Why is the text in the TLS
> specs not sufficient? We should IMHO not include text is the TLS
> specifications already cover things.
>

Well, in this case we should remove the last two paragraphs from the
section 2.2. But I don't think it is a good idea.

Keep it as it is will improve the readability. Based on your review on
version 01
(http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/netconf.2008/msg00154.html),
Section 2.2 has been detailed as it is today.

Please kindly propose which portion you prefer to read in the document,
and which one you don't.

Best regards,
Badra




_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email