[imss] Publication Requested: RTM MIB

[[e-mail]]

RFC publication has just been requested for the RTM MIB draft.  The
PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:

                 Fibre-Channel Routing Information MIB
                   draft-ietf-imss-fc-rtm-mib-02.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (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).

The online checker thinks some of the pages are 1 line too long - not
worth revising the draft to address.

   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 normative references to Internet Drafts are:
o draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-nn.txt - In RFC Editor's Queue
o draft-ietf-imss-fc-fspf-mib-nn.txt - Publication is being requested
	at the same time as this MIB.

   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 routing within a Fibre Channel fabric which is independent of the
   usage of a particular routing protocol.

--  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 for the imss WG by Keith McCloghrie.
   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
[phone]             FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss