RE: TimePeriod (Was RE: MIB/PIB doctor review for draft-ietf-ipsp -ipsecpib-09.txt - part 2)
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:01:19 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipsp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503FD6A34@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
> > Regarding this comment from Bert: > > "35.In fact, the whole TimePeriod... stuff seems so generic to any > policy, that I would think it would also be in a separate module > so that it can be re-used much easier. > In fact the RFC3060 (and possibly RFC3460) should be separate > modules that can be re-used by technology specific specifications > and/or modules. I thought that that was the whole concept/idea of > doing a PCIM and PCIMe. They would be CORE definitions upon which > technology specific definitions (like IPsec and QoS) could/would > build. Have we completely lost this idea/concept? " > > I agree with Bert that the TimePeriod is generic. If we > separate this to another PIB module, is the ipsp group (or > anywhere in IETF) willing to accommodate another PIB draft? > If not, I'll leave it inside IPsec PIB since in most cases > IPsec policy specification needs to be associated with time periods. > One possibility is to do the generic stuff as a separate PIB module in the same document! Bert > Best regards > Man >