Hi David: I am fine with your comments.
/Miguel David Harrington wrote:
Hi, Thank you for the review. comments inline.-----Original Message-----From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:36 PMTo: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txtI have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewerfor 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 Callcommentsyou 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: none Nits/editorial comments: A few nits, if you have a chance to bringtothe document. - Spelling errors: Page 5: s/Informatiion/Information Page 9: capitalize "it" in "it is extremely important..."fixed.- Expand acronyms at first occurrence and add a reference to them(ifthey 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 referenceto RFC 3444 in Section 1.6 in relation with bullet points 1 and 2.done- Page 10, Section 2.4. The text talks about a "router alert". Iguessyou should add a reference to the relevant document that describes "Router alert", presumably RFC 2113 and RFC 2711done- 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 readerof this document some 5 years from now, at that time perhaps thoseWGsdo not exist any longer, and it would be hard to trace the deliverablesthat this draft is trying to consider. I think it is useless to haveareference by name, because it will be hard to find it when the RFCispublished. I think the draft should refer a document, I-D or RFC, with aproper reference. If this cannot be done, the text is mostlyuseless. I modified the text to say "The IETF, via the Benchmarking Methodology WG (BMWG), has defined recommendations..." and added "Search for "benchmark" in the RFC search tool."and "The IETF, via the IP Performance Monitoring (IPPM) WG, has developeda set of standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they can be performed by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. The existing metrics might be applicable to the new protocol. Search for "metric" in the RFC search tool."- Comment. Section 4.3 discusses the placement of the Operations and Manageability Considerations Section. I think the Instructions toRFCAuthors, http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html should be updatedtoreflect this draft, especially in the section that discusses thenamesand titles of sections in an RFC. I know this effort is not part of theauthor's role, but it should be done by someone at some point intime. That discussion is (deliberately) above my pay grade. ;-)/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
-- 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
