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:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:12 AM > To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); [email protected]; 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > +34-91-339-3608 > Ericsson Spain _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
