Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-protection term-06 and meth-05

[Al Morton <acmorton at att.com>]

At 02:24 PM 7/2/2009, Al Morton wrote:
> This message begins a Last call
> on the Sub-IP Protection terms and methods.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term/
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth/
>
> The Last Call with end on July 31, 2009.

Chair's comments on the term-06 and meth05 drafts, 
Al
bmwg chair

There seems to be a consistent revision of the
Security sections (6 and 9 in term and meth),
also seen in the IGP drafts:

> 6. Security Considerations
>
>    Documents of this type do not directly affect the security
> of
>    Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is
> not
>    performed on devices or systems connected to production
> networks.
>    Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the
> media 
>    layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and
> various 
>    other drafts.  This document attempts to formalize a set
> of 
>    common methodology for benchmarking performance of
> failover
>    mechanisms in a lab environment.

SIP?

Please use the "standard" paragraphs:

>    Benchmarking
> activities as described in this memo are limited to
>    technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a
> laboratory
>    environment, with dedicated address space and the
> constraints
>    specified in the sections above.
>
>    The benchmarking network topology will be an independent
> test setup
>    and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the
> test
>    traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to
> the test
>    management network.
>
>    Further, benchmarking is performed on a
> "black-box" basis, relying
>    solely on measurements observable external to the
> DUT/SUT.
>
>    Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
> specifically for
>    benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network
> security arising
>    from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in
> production
>    networks.

Also:

The terms draft should probably be using the pre-5378
disclaimer.

The meth draft has
  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
     being 2 characters in excess of 72.

which seems to be the line:
Expires: September 8,
2009                                    
S. Vapiwala