An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
RFC 6632

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-20)
No email
send info
Thanks for working through my Discuss

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-15 for -06)
No email
send info
(Sorry, timed out so only got to look at the 1st 30 pages
or so so far. Looks like a useful doc though.)

- Sometimes (e.g. for COPS) you say not to bother (which is
good), but other times you don't (e.g. ACAP), which is a pity.
I'd have liked consistent editorialisng like that all over
the place. (Though I realise it might not be easy, but even
knowing "opinions differ" would be useful.)

- FCAPS - where is this "outside the IETF" to which you
refer on p36? If its not a secret place, be good to be
specific.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-21)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my concerns

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-13 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree with many of Adrian's DISCUSS points.

Other COMMENTs:

(1) The last paragraph of section 1.2 should have at
least some reference to an I-D or other document to
indicate what the authors are talking about

(2) Section 3.2 seems odd compared to the rest of the
document, as the RFCs mentioned in this section are
not management standards; several are just
informational RFCs.

(3) At the end of Section 3.4, it says that there are
two protocols standardized, and then has three bullets
underneath.  I think the third bullet should be
separated out, since its relation to OWAMP and TWAMP
is not clearly explained here.