Last Call Review of draft-ietf-eman-framework-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-eman-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-24
Requested 2014-02-13
Authors John Parello, Benoît Claise, Brad Schoening, Juergen Quittek
Draft last updated 2014-02-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -15 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -16 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-eman-framework-15-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-02-24
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-02-24



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.


Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.


Document:                                   draft-ietf-eman-framework-15.txt

Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                               24 February 2014

IETF LC End Date:                       24 February 2014

IESG Telechat date:                   N/A


Summary:                                     I have no major issues with the document, but I have a few editorial comments that I ask the authors to consider addressing.

Major issues: -


Minor issues: -


Nits/editorial comments: 




Section 4:



Q4_1:                 The 3


 picture (Single Power Supply with Multiple Devices) is split between two pages. Would it be possible to make sure the whole picture is on a single page?


Q4_2:                 In the 4


 picture (Multiple Power Supplies with Single Devices), there are two “######” lines between ‘power source 1’ and ‘device’? Is there a  reason for that?



Section 5:



Q5_1:                 I think it would be useful to have a few general words about what is not covered also in the Abstract and Introduction.



Section 6.2:



Q6_2_1:            Within section 6.2, and the subclasses, do you need to indicate ‘(Class)’? The section name already indicates ‘(Class)’?


Q6_2_2:            Shall ‘Component (Component)’ be ‘Component (Class)’?



Section 6.3:



Q6_3_1:            For section 6.3.2, I suggest to change the section title from ‘Context in General’ to ‘Context: General’, to be aligned with the other Context related attributes.