Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:35:32 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

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

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 01-June-2009
IETF LC End Date: 02-June-2009

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: A few nits, if you have a chance to bring to the 
document.

- Spelling errors:
   Page 5: s/Informatiion/Information
   Page 9: capitalize "it" in "it is extremely important..."

- Expand acronyms at first occurrence and add a reference to them (if 
they are documents). This includes: SNMP, SYSLOG, COPS, XML, RADIUS, 
DIAMETER, NETCONF, IPFIX, DMTF, TMF, RMON, and NMS.

- Although a reference exist later in the text, I would add a reference 
to RFC 3444 in Section 1.6 in relation with bullet points 1 and 2.

- Page 10, Section 2.4. The text talks about a "router alert". I guess 
you should add a reference to the relevant document that describes 
"Router alert", presumably RFC 2113 and RFC 2711

- In Section 3.6, page 21, second and third paragraphs talk about 
existing working groups (BMWG and IPPM) and their deliverables (some 
"metris", referenced by name not by reference). If we consider a reader 
of this document some 5 years from now, at that time perhaps those WGs do 
not exist any longer, and it would be hard to trace the deliverables that 
this draft is trying to consider. I think it is useless to have a 
reference by name, because it will be hard to find it when the RFC is 
published. I think the draft should refer a document, I-D or RFC, with a 
proper reference. If this cannot be done, the text is mostly useless.

- Comment. Section 4.3 discusses the placement of the Operations and 
Manageability Considerations Section. I think the Instructions to RFC 
Authors, http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html should be updated to 
reflect this draft, especially in the section that discusses the names 
and titles of sections in an RFC. I know this effort is not part of the 
author's role, but it should be done by someone at some point in time.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain