Rodney, What I meant and I think Joel got it right is to add informative reference to the manuals/documents where you can see how to write policy similar to the ones in the appendix. BTW: You can make all changes after the IETF LC is finished (December 3rd) Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rodunn@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:09 PM > To: Joel Jaeggli > Cc: Roni Even; General Area Review Team; IETF-Discussion list; draft- > ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control- > plane-04 > > Joel, > > I had responded offline to Roni to get clarification on the reference > part. I wasn't clear as to what what the informative reference should > be. > > Here was my response: > > "rd> The idea was that the text in the draft is normative but the > configuration examples are not as they are many different ways for the > configurations to be constructed to accomplish the same output. While > some are more optimized from a number of lines perspective they didn't > map clearly enough between the two examples or as clearly illustrate > the > example logic. > > I'm not sure what you meant by "where the correct syntax is specified". > The syntax used is correct just there are various ways it can be > configured. Some actually come down to personal preference so there is > no "correct" in the sense of implementation uniqueness." > > Can you clarify it for me? > > I updated the other two points and went with "active" on the second. > > Thanks, > Rodney > > > > > On 11/28/10 11:05 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > Active is fine, turned on And always on have different meanings > however. > > > > I think we can fix appendix a with the appropriate informative > reference > > as specified. > > > > Joel's widget number 2 > > > > On Nov 28, 2010, at 7:39, "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >> > <<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>http://wiki.t > ools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >> > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments > >> you may receive. > >> > >> Document: draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04 > >> > >> Reviewer: Roni Even > >> > >> Review Date: 2010-11-28 > >> > >> IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-3 > >> > >> IESG Telechat date: (if known) > >> > >> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational > RFC. > >> There are some nits and minor issue. > >> > >> Major issues: > >> > >> Minor issues: The example in appendix A are using syntax with no > >> reference. The text says that this is non normative text but I think > >> that it will be good to have a reference to the document where the > >> correct syntax is specified > >> > >> Nits/editorial comments: > >> > >> 1.The first sentence of section 1 "Modern router architecture design > >> maintains a strict separation of forwarding and routing control > plane > >> hardware and software." Talks about routing control plane while the > >> next sentence and the rest of the document calls it "router control > plane" > >> > >> 2.In section 2 third paragraph "Additionally, there may be other > >> vendor or implementation specific protection mechanisms that are on > by > >> default or always on. ". I suggest changing the text "are on" and > >> "always on" maybe to "active" or "turned on". > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Roni Even > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf