Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-14.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:34:22 +0200

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 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

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

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-14.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 15-June-2010
IESG Telechat date: 17-June-2010

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: There are new nits/editorial issues in this 
version, and a remaining one

New issues:

I run idnits, and there are more unused references in this version of the 
document: RFC 4717

Also, in order to avoid false positive in idnits, proper references 
should be added to RFC 4742 and RFC 4252 in the "username" definition of 
Section 2.1.4.

Remaining issues:

I reviewed version -12 of this document, and I raised four nits/editorial 
topics (see review at 
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-12-garcia.txt 
).

Two of those four issues have been addressed (the removal of "rfcXXXX" in 
the module namespace and removal of unneeded references). I have received 
a justification from the authors for not addressing another issue (the 
addition of the term "modules" to the namespace name). However, one 
issues (still nits/editorial) remain. I repost it here in case the 
authors feel it should be addressed:

- In Section 2, the sentence reads:

    "An overview
    of the specific monitoring data defined in this document which MUST
    be present follows. "

   I don't think it is correct to embed a normative word (MUST) in a
relative clause. I suggest to split the sentence into two:

     "This document defines an overview of the specific monitoring data. 
This specific monitoring data MUST be always present in the data model, 
as described in the following sections."

BR,

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

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:01:43 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

"Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments: There are new nits/editorial issues in this version,
> and a remaining one
> 
> New issues:
> 

Most of these are actually references from the YANG module, and in order
to resolve this issue we will list those references in a subsection.

> Also, in order to avoid false positive in idnits, proper references should be
> added to RFC 4742 and RFC 4252 in the "username" definition of Section 2.1.4.

Ok.

> Two of those four issues have been addressed (the removal of "rfcXXXX" in the
> module namespace and removal of unneeded references). I have received a
> justification from the authors for not addressing another issue (the addition
> of the term "modules" to the namespace name). However, one issues (still
> nits/editorial) remain. I repost it here in case the authors feel it should be
> addressed:
> 
>     "This document defines an overview of the specific monitoring data. This
>     specific monitoring data MUST be always present in the data model, as
>     described in the following sections."

I agree that the MUST is not correct here.  We really just want to say
that the section contains an overview of the data in the YANG module.
So I suggest this paragraph instead:

  This section presents an overview of the monitoring data model.  For
  detailed descriptions refer to the normative YANG module provided
  in this document (see section 5).

/martin