Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-11-00

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

Review
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-11






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.




 




 




 




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].”.