I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 01-June-2009 IETF LC End Date: 02-June-2009 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP. Major issues: none Minor issues: noneNits/editorial comments: A few nits, if you have a chance to bring to the document.
- Spelling errors: Page 5: s/Informatiion/Information Page 9: capitalize "it" in "it is extremely important..."- Expand acronyms at first occurrence and add a reference to them (if they are documents). This includes: SNMP, SYSLOG, COPS, XML, RADIUS, DIAMETER, NETCONF, IPFIX, DMTF, TMF, RMON, and NMS.
- Although a reference exist later in the text, I would add a reference to RFC 3444 in Section 1.6 in relation with bullet points 1 and 2.
- Page 10, Section 2.4. The text talks about a "router alert". I guess you should add a reference to the relevant document that describes "Router alert", presumably RFC 2113 and RFC 2711
- In Section 3.6, page 21, second and third paragraphs talk about existing working groups (BMWG and IPPM) and their deliverables (some "metris", referenced by name not by reference). If we consider a reader of this document some 5 years from now, at that time perhaps those WGs do not exist any longer, and it would be hard to trace the deliverables that this draft is trying to consider. I think it is useless to have a reference by name, because it will be hard to find it when the RFC is published. I think the draft should refer a document, I-D or RFC, with a proper reference. If this cannot be done, the text is mostly useless.
- Comment. Section 4.3 discusses the placement of the Operations and Manageability Considerations Section. I think the Instructions to RFC Authors, http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html should be updated to reflect this draft, especially in the section that discusses the names and titles of sections in an RFC. I know this effort is not part of the author's role, but it should be done by someone at some point in time.
/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
