----- Original Message ----- From: "Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 2:07 PM
I am the assigned 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> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 11 April 2015 IETF LC End Date: 20 April 2015 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I do, however, have a couple of comments (see below). Major Issues: None Minor Issues: Q1_10-1: In the IANA Considerations section, IANA is requested to register new values. However, it is not mentioned in which registry the new values will be registered. <tp> Christer You puzzle me. When I look in the I-D I see "IANA is requested to assign a value in the SnmpAuthProtocols registry " which looks to me like a mention of which registry the new values will be registered in. Tom Petch Editorial nits: Q1_GENERAL-1: Regarding reference, sometimes you say "RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]", sometimes "RFC XXXX" and sometimes "[RFCXXXX]". I think you should be consistent, and e.g. use "RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]" on first occurrence, and then "RFC XXXX". In some cases "[RFCXXXX]" is ok, though, e.g. in section 9.4 where you say "SNMP-USER-BASED-SM-MIB [RFC3414].". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
