Last Call Review of draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-10
review-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-10-opsdir-lc-dodge-2014-07-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-07-08 | |
Requested | 2014-06-17 | |
Authors | Mouli Chandramouli , Benoît Claise , Brad Schoening , Juergen Quittek , Thomas Dietz | |
I-D last updated | 2014-07-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -10
by Tero Kivinen
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Menachem Dodge (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Menachem Dodge |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 13) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-07-09 |
review-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-10-opsdir-lc-dodge-2014-07-09-00
Hello, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Intended status: Standards Track This document defines a subset of the Management Information Base (MIB) for power and energy monitoring of devices. Some NITS ========= In section 5.1.1 in the paragraph beginning "The fifth table is the eoEnergyTable..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following sentence is unclear to me, I'm not sure if the word "in" should be removed or whether there are missing word(s): "The meaning of the three symbols in is a compressed representation of the object’s MAX-ACCESS clause" ========================= In Section 12 the following sentence is unclear: ------------------------------------------------ New Assignments (and potential deprecation) to Power State Sets shall be administered by IANA and the guidelines and procedures are specified in [EMAN-FMWK], and will, as a consequence, the IANAPowerStateSet Textual Convention should be updated. ========================= The nits tool has found the following: Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 266 has weird spacing: '...tiplier eoP...' == Line 293 has weird spacing: '...alIndex eoEne...' == Line 295 has weird spacing: '...nterval eoEn...' == Line 298 has weird spacing: '...nterval eoEn...' == Line 300 has weird spacing: '...ageType eoE...' -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EMAN-AWARE-MIB' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LLDP-MED-MIB' == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). ====================================================== Otherwise, the document is well written and I have no further issues. Best Regards, Menachem Dodge