Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-04

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:19:23 -0500

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Aug-13-2012
IETF LC End Date: Aug-15-2012
IESG Telechat date: Aug-16-2012

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in
the review.

Major: 0
Minor: 5
Nits:  4

Minor:
1/ S1, paragraph 2: The use of the phrase "...how to implement things
  properly," is too colloquial for a standards document (even though the
  draft is targeted as an Informational).  I would suggest to rewrite the
  phrase with more information on what these "things" are.

2/ S1, similar comment for issue (b), it is too colloquial.  I would
  suggest rewording to something like the following: "network equipment
  vendors introducing who would like to ensure a smooth delivery of many
  devices with new features"

3/ S1, paragraph 4 --- I suspect that simply expanding eNodeB to
  "Evolved Node B" and referencing the appropriate standard body's
  document describing the role of eNodeB should suffice.

4/ S3, second paragraph: "let us agree" is, again, more colloquial than
  standards-oriented prose.  Maybe a good thing to do would be to define
  "configuration data", "configuration server", "joining device" and
  others in a terminology section (either as a subsection in S3 or as a
  section of its own).  You already have a good collection of such
  terminology definitions at the beginning of S3.

5/ S5.4, page 12, while discussing lack of URNs for SAN to carry a MAC:
  one way to carry a MAC in SAN is to use the otherName field as
  discussed in rfc5280. S4.2.1.6.  I suspect that you have evaluated
  this option but decided against it.  If so, it will be good to list it
  as an indication of the reasons why you do not think this option will
  work.

Nits:
1/ S1, s/nodes, in a Wi-Fi rather/nodes in a Wi-Fi rather/

2/ S3, in "Pre-configuration": I suspect that the "certificate"
  mentioned there pertains to an X.509 certificate.  If so, please
  make it apparent.

3/ S5.1: s/non-IETF protocols only./non-IETF protocols./

4/ S5.4: s/identity built in/identity/

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/