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

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Tue, 06 March 2012 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9764221F865E for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 02:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.376
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2gPZ+dBesn9A for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 02:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E6921F8647 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 02:12:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bb7ae0000007b2-08-4f55e309bdfc
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 08.02.01970.903E55F4; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:12:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:12:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4F55E308.7060407@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:12:24 +0100
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, bclaise@cisco.com, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, Christopher Liljenstolpe <ietf@cdl.asgaard.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:12:28 -0000

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 <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
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".



Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain