[imss] Publication Requested: NSM MIB
Black_David@emc.com Fri, 23 September 2005 22:44 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIwH6-0007P7-I7; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIwH5-0007N9-A8 for imss@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20181 for <imss@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com ([168.159.2.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EIwNb-0005Yd-HH for imss@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:50:56 -0400
Received: from mxic2.corp.emc.com (mxic2.corp.emc.com [128.221.12.9]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id j8NMi67G008383 for <imss@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RT50XXFQ>; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:06 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E0557A6E8C@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
To: imss@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:44:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, Antispam-Data: 2005.9.23.28
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reasons='EMC_BODY_1+ -5, EMC_FROM_00+ 0, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Subject: [imss] Publication Requested: NSM MIB
X-BeenThere: imss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet and Management Support for Storage Working Group <imss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:imss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss>, <mailto:imss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: imss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org
Publication has just been requested on the NSM MIB draft. The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt) is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup: Fibre-Channel Name Server MIB draft-ietf-imss-fc-nsm-mib-02.txt Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard RFC PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (acting IMSS WG chair) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Yes. This document has been reviewed by Fibre Channel experts in Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards organization) in addition to members of the IMSS WG, and the IMSS WG's MIB expert. Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? Needs the usual IETF OPS Area MIB Doctor review. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No. 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? It's hard to distinguish the two cases due to somewhat thin WG membership. There is solid support for this document both in the WG and from T11. 1.f) [... not distributed to the WG ...] 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Henrik's (really useful) checker says everything is ok. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes. The only normative reference to an ID is to draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-nn.txt for which Proposed Standard RFC publication has already been requested. 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary * Working Group Summary * Protocol Quality 1.j) Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents. -- Technical Summary This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for information related to the Name Server function of a Fibre Channel network. The Fibre Channel Name Server provides a means for Fibre Channel ports to register and discover Fibre Channel names and attributes. -- Working Group Summary This document was reviewed in the IMSS WG and in Technical Committee T11 (the official Fibre Channel standards body). T11 voted to recommend a prior version of this document to the IETF. -- Protocol Quality The protocol has been reviewed by Keith McCloghrie for the imss WG. An approval announcement will need to credit a MIB Doctor as having reviewed this for the IESG as Keith is both an author of this draft and the imss WG's MIB expert. ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ imss mailing list imss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
- [imss] Publication Requested: NSM MIB Black_David