Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:21:48 -0700

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05
To: [email-masked]

This list has been closed.  Please use [email-masked].

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:19:54 -0700
Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05
Title: An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
Reviewer: Lisa Dusseault
Review Date: March 13, 2012

Summary: Document is probably a useful contribution

The goal of this document sounds great, and it seems there is some
need for a survey or overview of network management standards.  Some
sections achieve the document's goals with concise, clear summaries
and pointers to outside work.  Other sections of the document suffer
from meaningless (e.g. circular or jargon-laden) summaries and awkward
explanations, but at least the pointers will still be useful.  I have
some concerns about whether the document is comprehensive, because a
survey is most useful when it really points to all the prior and
relevant work at least in brief.

While I am not in a position to notice all the places where the
document may have holes in its comprehensiveness, I did note that
currently active work was not consistently covered.  The document does
not mention or refer to ARMD, BMWG or benchmarking, GROW or BGP
Monitoring.  I do not know which of these Ops area WGs are important
or actively making progress, but to an Ops outsider they all seem
relevant.  It's not as if the document does not cover active work: the
document goes into some detail explaining not only the purpose of
energy management work going on in the IETF but also some of the
challenges of that work (appendix B).  Missing other active WGs'
topics seems odd.

Organizational:

Section 3.9 describes ACAP.  Either ACAP belongs in the general
purpose protocols (section 2) or another section entirely (perhaps
together with XCAP in a section on application-layer configuration
protocols).  In any case, ACAP has been largely superseded by other
work, which would be useful for readers of this document to know.

Section 3.10 describes XCAP.  It is similar to ACAP in the general
scope of its ambition.

Section 3.2 doesn't seem to fit in Section 3.  I understand Section 3
to be about application-focused network management protocols and
mechanisms, whereas section 3.2 does not describe any specific
protocols or mechanisms, but rather operational guidance.

Nits (note that generally the document would be much clearer if it had
a good grammatical editorial pass):

Grammatical error:
"As far as valuable Best Current
  Practice (BCP) documents are referenced."

Grammatical or cut-and-paste error:
 - "a management protocol used to convey management information
     between the SNMP entities, and management information."

Grammatical error:
"As such following standards build up the basis of the current SNMP
  Management Framework"

Grammatical error: "    Requirements to such a monitoring on the application
          level include measuring signaling quality"

Grammatical error: "            YANG allows to express constraints on data
models by means of type
                     restrictions and XPATH 1.0 [XPATH] expressions."

Confusing: "One example SDO using
  DIAMETER extensively is 3GPP (e.g. 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem'
  (IMS) uses DIAMETER based interfaces (e.g.  Cx) [3GPPIMS])."
               -- looks like the Cx is either an error or can be cut, Cx is not
referred to anywhere else in the document

Grammatical or typo: "          The main goal of this protocol is to configure
and manage access
                  equipments and allow them to report information"
               (plural 'equipments' is not used, fix also elsewhere in doc)

Grammatical: "   The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast
          selection of the management standard in interest"

Grammatical: "          due to several factors including the rising and
                  fluctuating energy costs,", extra 'the'