RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt

[Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>]

Bert,
  Thanks for your comments.  Responses inline.

-Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:03 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> 
> 
> Further comments (I have not checked the whole document,
> just reporting as I see thibgs while looking for specific
> stuff).
> 
> The IANA considerations section is setting aside 4% of the
> name space for Message Type and 8% of Object Class name space for
> OIF UNI. Is that the proper thing to do?
> 
> I understand OIF has already "provisionally claimed" a few
> of the "reserved" numbers. We can honor that while we move forward.
> But I think it would be better to keep the whole name space 
> assignments in one place, and under control of IANA.
> 
> The OIF (and other organisations) can then request assignments through
> the normal process, similar to how 
>   
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bala-uni-signaling-extensions-00.t
xt
> is trying to do right now.
agreed.  We have rewritten the IANA considerations section to keep the whole
name space assignments under control of IANA.


>By the way, you use these terms:
>
>  - Message Type
>  - Msg Type
>  - MsgType
>
>Probably better to settle for one "spelling" and be consistent I think
Done.  Thanks for catching that.

>In IANA Considerations section you also talk about
>"class and class type name spaces" while you only elaborate on the
>control of the "Object Class Name Space". So are there multiple names
spaces
>for class and class-type or just one. There seem to be two, i.e. Object
Class
>and Class Type (within a class). Does the Class Type name space not have
>IANA considerations?
This has been clarified as you suggest.

>
>Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:52 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> 
> 
> From Kireeti's "wg document status" email
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:52 AM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: WG dcoument status
> > 
> > 
> > Here's a status update.
> > 
> ... snip ...
> 
> > The LMP draft:
> > 	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> > has gone through one round of WG Last Call comments and, once a
> > new version has been produced incorporating these comments, will
> > go through a final WG Last Call.  This is also targeted as a
> > Proposed Standard.
> > 
> I will note that in my view, the security section will need
> serious work. I doubt that the Security ADs will sign off on the
> current text. The security section should address the risks
> and treats. It should then specify how to protect against them.
> A text like "LMP exchanges may be authenticated with MD5" (which
> is basically what you write now) seems not sufficient to me.
> 
> Bert
>