Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-04-20
Requested 2015-04-06
Authors Johannes Merkle, Manfred Lochter
Draft last updated 2015-04-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Christer Holmberg
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-11
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-04-11


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





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.




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 “