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

["Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Miguel,

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

See below.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); [e-mail]; 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
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.

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
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/

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

> - 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".

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
documents 
on core system and interface models in NETMOD WG are all active
documents 
without any status. I think it is sufficient to mention them as "ongoing
work".
 
> BR,
> 
>      Miguel
> 
> --
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]
> Ericsson Spain