Re: Comments on draft-zhao-opsec-routing-capabilities-02.txt

On 7/25/06, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> wrote:

Hi,

I think it would be advantageous to have a onr-paragrapgh boilerplate in each capabilitieas draft to explain this, just as most ietf drafts have a statement about rfc2119 teeminology, even though the full description is written in rfc2119.

Then maybe copy all of 1.7 from the framework into each capability draft ?

If we're going to do that, then we might consider the other sections listed
below + possibly goals (1.2) and motivation (1.3) ?!?

     1.5.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     1.6.  Intended Audience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

     1.7.  Format and Definition of Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . 10
     1.8.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     1.9.  Intended Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---George

dbh

From: owner-opsec@psg.com [mailto:owner-opsec@psg.com] On Behalf Of George Jones
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:06 AM
To: Zhao Ye

Cc: opsec@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-zhao-opsec-routing-capabilities-02.txt

On 7/24/06, Zhao Ye < yezhao@huawei.com> wrote:

> 1.2. Capabilities versus Requirements
>
>    Capabilities may or may not be requirements. That is a local
>    determination that must be made by each operator with reference to
>    the policies that they must support. It is hoped that this
> document,
>    together with [OSCP] will assist operators in identifying their
>    security capability requirements and communicating them clearly to
>    vendors.
>
> ...
> gmj> We need a standard text for this section to be used in all
> capability drafts.
> gmj> I will work on this.
> ...

Ok, waiting for your normative description.

It turns out that we don't need this at all in the capabilty drafts.
Section 1.7 of the framework covers it.

---George