Hi, Thank you for the review. comments inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:miguel.a.gar...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:36 PM > To: dharring...@huawei.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: opsawg-cha...@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team > Subject: Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txt > > 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 <miguel.a.gar...@ericsson.com> 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 bring to > the 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 (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. done > > - 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 done > > - 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. 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 developed a 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 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. That discussion is (deliberately) above my pay grade. ;-) > > /Miguel > -- > Miguel A. Garcia > +34-91-339-3608 > Ericsson Spain > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > ops...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
