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

"Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <> Fri, 09 March 2012 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0127221F8646 for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 06:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.527
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynHXLBXIeZXt for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 06:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0B521F8642 for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 06:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTP id q29E31rU025097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:03:01 +0100
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTP id q29E31xZ023502; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:03:01 +0100
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:02:57 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:02:56 +0100
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
Thread-Index: Acz7gaXJ+gEuzOqDSYS/NS2Xr0TafwCdT84w
References: <>
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <>
To: "ext Miguel A. Garcia" <>, <>, "Dan Romascanu" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2012 14:02:57.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[54E10CD0:01CCFDFD]
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R)
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit for further information)
X-purgate-size: 5065
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1331301782-000044A2-F124AADE/0-0/0-0
Cc: General Area Review Team <>
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:03:14 -0000

Hi Miguel,

thank you for your kind review and valuable comments.
I will resubmit before deadline on Monday.

See below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miguel A. Garcia []
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich);; Dan Romascanu;
> Christopher Liljenstolpe
> Cc: General Area Review Team
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
> 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
> <>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
> 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
> so a big thanks to the authors and contributors for spending quite
> 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
> 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.

We had some discussion on this and came to the conclusion that COPS 
itself is no specific management protocol. So we decided to mention that

COPS-PR uses Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for provisioning

of policy information and gave a reference to [RFC2748]. This should be 
probably sufficient.
> - Section 3.6 (page 31). The text merely names the names of the
> Diameter applications. I would expect to see a one-paragraph
> of what application does. As a comparison, this is what the rest of
> document does when describing extensions or applications of a
> So, I would ask you to take a look at the abstract of each RFC and
> it in there.
> - Section 3.10 describes XCAP. I am missing some text to guide the
> 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
> big number of these applications. Having said that, I would expect the
> document to list the IETF-produced XCAP application usages together
> a one-paragraph description. FYI, you can take a look at this list of
> XCAP application usages in the SIMPLE WG document list:

We had some discussion in the WG how to reduce the text to an
amount. Although XCAP is not a network management protocol it is
and we wanted to have it in the document.
I would like to suggest to extend the text around your proposals but we
to avoid to make it too long and comprehensive.

> - Section 4.1.3, 2nd paragraph, describes what IPPM is all about. I
> this is not the correct place to have such description, because IPPM
> 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
> the "core system and interface models in YANG".

I would like to, however, the current document aims to list documents, 
which are already published. Only in a few important cases we mentioned 
documents which are mostly finished and near to publishing. The
on core system and interface models in NETMOD WG are all active
without any status. I think it is sufficient to mention them as "ongoing
> BR,
>      Miguel
> --
> Miguel A. Garcia
> +34-91-339-3608
> Ericsson Spain