[imss] Publication Requested: RSCN MIB
Black_David@emc.com Tue, 23 January 2007 23:45 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9VK3-0007nS-7H; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:45:03 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9VK1-0007nJ-AE for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:45:01 -0500
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9VJz-0003kp-Rd for imss@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:45:01 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (uraeus.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.14]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l0NNixLI025977 for <imss@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:44:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l0NNigfW028466 for <imss@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:44:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.13]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:44:44 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:44:43 -0500
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E055068B8BCD@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Publication Requested: RSCN MIB
Thread-Index: Acc/SHTwZ5f0Y71VT7i/0UGWY2XJ0Q==
To: imss@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2007 23:44:44.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[7549BB30:01C73F48]
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.0.283055, Antispam-Data: 2007.1.23.151432
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 76c7db407a166e4c39f35d8215d8dd32
Cc: Black_David@emc.com
Subject: [imss] Publication Requested: RSCN 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>
Errors-To: imss-bounces@ietf.org
RFC publication has just been requested for the RSCN MIB draft. The Doc Shepherding process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt) is being used. Here is the Document Shepherd writeup: Document Shepherd writeup: Fibre Channel Registered State Change Notification (RSCN) MIB draft-ietf-imss-fc-rscn-mib-02.txt Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? David L. Black (imss WG Chair) Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes, but an RFC Editor Note should be used to make two changes to text in Section 1 that is not appropriate for a Proposed Standard RFC: (A) Make the following change: OLD This memo was previously approved by T11.5 (http://www.t11.org); it is currently a work item of the IETF's IMSS working group. NEW This memo was previously approved by T11.5 (http://www.t11.org), and has been further developed in the IETF's IMSS working group. (B) Remove the following paragraph, leaving the RFC 2119 statement that occurs immediately after it: ----- This memo includes boilerplate which uses only one of the following terms, but is nevertheless required to mention all of the keywords in the following statement: ----- (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from 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. Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? An OPS Area MIB Doctor review was performed during WG Last Call. There does not appear to be a need for additional external reviews. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 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) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Yes. The idnits checker (1.124) says that the RFC 3978 boilerplate in this draft is slightly out of date, but it is still acceptable. Any revision of this draft will need to use the new RFC 4748 boilerplate. This draft was submitted in 2006 and hence has a 2006 copyright date. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, a MIB Doctor review occurred during WG Last Call, and the MIB Doctor (Bert Wijnen) is satisfied with this version of the draft. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Yes. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Yes, but the normative reference is to a document in another standards body, namely the FC-LS standard in INCITS Technical Committee T11: [FC-LS] "Fibre Channel - Link Services (FC-LS)", ANSI INCITS xxx-200n, Rev 1.61, http://www.t11.org/t11/stat.nsf/upnum/1620-d, November 2006. As of January 23, 2007, the designator "INCITS 433" has been assigned to the FC-LS standard, and the standard is in an INCITS public review that that will end on February 19, 2007. It is likely that FC-LS will be published as ANSI INCITS 433-2007 during 2007, but it will be necessary to verify this and enter the correct reference prior to publication of the RFC. RFC publication will have to be delayed until FC-LS is published as is the usual procedure for normative references. While the RFC Editor may not be able to track FC-LS as an external normative reference, there is an explicit Note to the RFC Editor in the draft saying that this reference update is necessary. That Note should cause the RFC Editor to query the authors and the WG chair about what is to be done, at which point any necessary wait for publication of FC-LS can be imposed. Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. No. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes, and the draft contains an explicit instruction to the RFC Editor on where to insert the IANA assigned MIB number from the mib-2 subtree. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? N/A. If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. N/A. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? N/A. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes, the Document Shepherd has relied on MIB Doctor review for the MIB checks. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 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 management of Fibre Channel's Registered State Change Notifications (RSCNs). 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. Document Quality The protocol has been reviewed for the IMSS WG by Keith McCloghrie. The protocol has been reviewed for the IESG by David L. Black (imss WG Chair). The MIB Doctor Review performed by Bert Wijnen found a few issues in SMI syntax and documentation, as well as the FC-LS reference issue described above. Personnel Document Shepherd: David L. Black Responsible Area Director: Dan Romascanu ---------------------------------------------------- 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: RSCN MIB Black_David