Hello,

 

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing

effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments 


were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.  

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other 

last call comments.

Intended status: Standards Track




 

This document defines a subset of the Management Information Base (MIB) for 

power and energy monitoring of devices.

 

Some NITS

=========




In section 5.1.1 in the paragraph beginning "The fifth table is the eoEnergyTable..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following sentence is unclear to me, I'm not sure if the word "in" should be removed or whether


there are missing word(s):

"The meaning of the three symbols in is a compressed representation of the object’s MAX-ACCESS clause"

=========================


In Section 12 the following sentence is unclear:

------------------------------------------------

New Assignments (and potential deprecation) to Power State Sets

shall be administered by IANA and the guidelines and procedures


are specified in [EMAN-FMWK], and will, as a consequence, the

IANAPowerStateSet Textual Convention should be updated.

 

=========================

The nits tool has found the following:




Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 266 has weird spacing: '...tiplier    eoP...'


  == Line 293 has weird spacing: '...alIndex  eoEne...'

  == Line 295 has weird spacing: '...nterval   eoEn...'

  == Line 298 has weird spacing: '...nterval   eoEn...'




  == Line 300 has weird spacing: '...ageType    eoE...'

  -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check

     skipped.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)




  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EMAN-AWARE-MIB'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LLDP-MED-MIB'


  == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of

     draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-05

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).




======================================================

Otherwise, the document is well written and I have no further issues.

 

 

Best Regards,


Menachem Dodge