Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-03-13
Requested 2012-02-23
Authors Mehmet Ersue, Benoît Claise
Draft last updated 2012-03-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Miguel García
Assignment Reviewer Miguel García 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-06
Review completed: 2012-03-06


I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia at>
Review Date: 2012-06-03	
IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-08
IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-15

Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

The document fills the gap of providing an overview of the IETF 

management standards. I believe this type of documents is highly needed, 

so a big thanks to the authors and contributors for spending quite some 

time in putting this draft.

Here are some minor improvements:

- In section 1.3, I would add informative references to "Relax NG", 

"URI", "XPath", SMIv2, XSD, and YANG.

- In section 2.2, 4th paragraph, I wouldd add informative references to 

ITU-T X.733 and IETF Alarm MIB.

- Section 3.5, 4th paragraph, add references to "IPsec tunnels", 

"TLS-based security solutions"

- Expand acronyms at first usage. This includes:
  - RMON (Section 2.3)
  - YANG, XSD (Section 1.3)

- Section 3.3.2 describes COPS-PR, I would have expected to first 

describe COPS, and then COPS-PR as a variation of it. But there is no 

description of COPS, so I would like you to consider first adding a 

description of COPS.

- Section 3.6 (page 31). The text merely names the names of the different 

Diameter applications. I would expect to see a one-paragraph description 

of what application does. As a comparison, this is what the rest of the 

document does when describing extensions or applications of a protocol. 

So, I would ask you to take a look at the abstract of each RFC and write 

it in there.

- Section 3.10 describes XCAP. I am missing some text to guide the reader 

a bit further. I would describe that XCAP has been designed and is 

commonly used in SIP environments, in particular SIP for Instant 

Messages, Presence, and Conferences. I am also missing some text 

indicating that XCAP by itself is a kind of framework, but the real 

functionality is provided by "XCAP Application Usages", where there are 

big number of these applications. Having said that, I would expect the 

document to list the IETF-produced XCAP application usages together with 

a one-paragraph description. FYI, you can take a look at this list of 

XCAP application usages in the SIMPLE WG document list:

- Section 4.1.3, 2nd paragraph, describes what IPPM is all about. I think 

this is not the correct place to have such description, because IPPM has 

been already described in Section 3.4. So, I would replace the second 

paragraph except the first sentence with a reference to Section 3.4.

- Section 4.1.6, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I would add references to 

Sections 2.3 (IPFIX) and 2.2 (SYSLOG), respectively.

- Section 4.2.1, penultimate paragraph, add an informative reference to 

the "core system and interface models in YANG".



Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain