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

Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <> Tue, 06 March 2012 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F5B21F857D for <>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.479
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dqQd7xOitXUy for <>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682C921F8577 for <>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEECC6599D; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:34:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tgEi1o9Eur-3; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D8FAC6598F; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:34:13 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7277C7D9-AA3B-45CB-A9C0-8EA6AF2D205B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:13 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Miguel A. Garcia <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:38:46 -0800
Cc:,, General Area Review Team <>, Dan Romascanu <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:34:16 -0000

Greetings Miguel,

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


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
> <>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <>
> 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:
> - 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
> +34-91-339-3608
> Ericsson Spain

Check my PGP key here:
Current vCard here:
Check my calendar availability: