On 19/01/2022 12:56, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thank you for checking the changes and sharing your feedback.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Envoyé : mercredi 19 janvier 2022 13:35
...
...
The user has to understand that [Enterprise-Numbers] is the same as
Private Enterprise Numbers", which may not be apparent; consistent
terminology is good.
[Med] Not sure a (which) change is needed. The current text says:
In most walks of life, if you have a registry and a private registry,
then users will assume that the registry is public and the private
registry is private and that there are two separate registries. Here
there is just the one and the correct name is 'Private Enterprise
Number' sometimes abbreviated to PEN. Experts will know that there
is no Public Enterprise Number, others will not so I think we should
use Private Enterprise Number in all cases and not just Enterprise
Number.
[Med] Went with the following change:
OLD:
vendor-id: Vendor ID is a security vendor's Enterprise Number
as
registered with IANA [Enterprise-Numbers].
NEW:
vendor-id: Vendor ID is a security vendor's enterprise number as
registered in the IANA's "Private Enterprise Numbers" registry
[Enterprise-Numbers].
You have still got half a dozen or so uses of 'Enterprise Number' in the
I-D and my preference would be to change them all to 'Private Enterprise
Number'!
[Med] No change is made for the other occurrences on purpose. For example,
The examples use the Enterprise Number 32473 defined for
documentation use [RFC5612].
no change is made to that text because we want to be consistent with existing RFC5612 which says the following:
IANA has updated the registration for Enterprise Number 32473 to
point to this RFC.
As I said before, an expert knows that there is no Public
Enterprise Number, others do not.
[Med] Added this new entry to the terminology section:
NEW:
The document uses IANA-assigned Enterprise Numbers. These numbers
are also known as "Private Enterprise Numbers" and "SMI (Structure of
Management Information) Network Management Private Enterprise Codes"
[Enterprise-Numbers].
Better?
I cannot see us agreeing on this. The fact that the terminology of
RFC5612 is not what it might be does not, for me, sanction other such
glitches.
Tom Petch
_________________________________________________
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
