Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mgt-fwk-03.txt Review: Joel M. Halpern Date: 12 februari 2005 This document is close to ready for publication as an Information RFC. There are some issues of clarity of purpose and clarity of wording that should be addressed. Section 2, called "Service Operation and Management" is actually an effort to talk about customer facing service interfaces. While this is an interesting topic, I repeatedly found myself wondering why I was reading it. And where the rest of "Service Operations and Management" (which is much broader than the customer facing function) had gone. I suspect that section 2 needs a different title, and an explanation of how its contents relate to any expected other work. I am tempted to wonder if this was intended to provide a context for customer facing SNMP views? Section 2.1 claims "this section presents the information model that is used for L3VPN service management at the SML." This statement is inaccurate in several ways. What follows it is not even an information model. There probably is not and should not be "the" information model for this. And even in an informational document, defining this model in an IETF document seems a stretch. If we actually intend to produce protocol solutions in this space, ad if this section is intended to be relevant, than it needs a lot more detail. Section 2.2.7 is a very clear and well put together description of some issues relating to authenticating VPN participants. However, I can no understand what it is doing in the middle of a Customer Management section. Possibly it does belong, but if so some additional text is needed to relate it to the rest of the section. Section 2.3 might generously be described as a Customer Management Decomposition. It isn't an architecture (the section is called "Customer Management Architecture") As a whole, section 3 is nicely put together. The usage of "must" in many of the items is odd, but probably accurate. The document tends to use "must" without qualification when it really means "must, if it is meaningful". This is particularly noticeable in 3.2.6, and to a lesser degree in 3.2.7. (3.2.7 makes an effort to first state "these things may not be present.") For example "Managed firewalls must be supported on a per-VPN basis" is really saying ~If you include firewalls in the service, then make sure they are manageable on a per-VPN basis.~ and saying it oddly. Yours, Joel M. Halpern ----- INT Framework for L3VPN Operations and Management (Informational) - 3 of 3 draft-ietf-l3vpn-mgt-fwk-03.txt Token: Thomas Narten Review Joel Halpern