Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Miguel,

	Thank you for your comments.  I am sure the authors are looking at them now.

	Chris

On 06Mar2012, at 02.12, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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>
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>
> Review Date: 2012-06-03	
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-08
> IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-15
> 
> Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
> 
> Major issues: none
> 
> Minor issues: none
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> The document fills the gap of providing an overview of the IETF management standards. I believe this type of documents is highly needed, so a big thanks to the authors and contributors for spending quite some time in putting this draft.
> 
> Here are some minor improvements:
> 
> - In section 1.3, I would add informative references to "Relax NG", "URI", "XPath", SMIv2, XSD, and YANG.
> 
> - In section 2.2, 4th paragraph, I wouldd add informative references to ITU-T X.733 and IETF Alarm MIB.
> 
> - Section 3.5, 4th paragraph, add references to "IPsec tunnels", "TLS-based security solutions"
> 
> - Expand acronyms at first usage. This includes:
>  - RMON (Section 2.3)
>  - YANG, XSD (Section 1.3)
> 
> - Section 3.3.2 describes COPS-PR, I would have expected to first describe COPS, and then COPS-PR as a variation of it. But there is no description of COPS, so I would like you to consider first adding a description of COPS.
> 
> - Section 3.6 (page 31). The text merely names the names of the different Diameter applications. I would expect to see a one-paragraph description of what application does. As a comparison, this is what the rest of the document does when describing extensions or applications of a protocol. So, I would ask you to take a look at the abstract of each RFC and write it in there.
> 
> - Section 3.10 describes XCAP. I am missing some text to guide the reader a bit further. I would describe that XCAP has been designed and is commonly used in SIP environments, in particular SIP for Instant Messages, Presence, and Conferences. I am also missing some text indicating that XCAP by itself is a kind of framework, but the real functionality is provided by "XCAP Application Usages", where there are big number of these applications. Having said that, I would expect the document to list the IETF-produced XCAP application usages together with a one-paragraph description. FYI, you can take a look at this list of XCAP application usages in the SIMPLE WG document list: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/simple/
> 
> - Section 4.1.3, 2nd paragraph, describes what IPPM is all about. I think this is not the correct place to have such description, because IPPM has been already described in Section 3.4. So, I would replace the second paragraph except the first sentence with a reference to Section 3.4.
> 
> - Section 4.1.6, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I would add references to Sections 2.3 (IPFIX) and 2.2 (SYSLOG), respectively.
> 
> - Section 4.2.1, penultimate paragraph, add an informative reference to the "core system and interface models in YANG".
> 
> BR,
> 
>    Miguel
> 
> -- 
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]
> Ericsson Spain

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl