[imss] Publication Requested: ZS MIB

[[e-mail]]

RFC publication has just been requested for the ZS 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 Zone Server MIB
                    draft-ietf-imss-fc-zs-mib-03.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) finds 3 lines with
"non-RFC3330-compliant
IPv4 addresses" - this is not an actual problem because these strings
are
actually section references into other standards, e.g., "Fibre Channel -
Generic Services-5 (FC-GS-5), ANSI INCITS 427-2006, section 6.4.10.2."

          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?

No.  A potentially problematic normative reference to T11's in-progress
FC-SW-5 standard was removed in the -03 version of the draft.

          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 numbers 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 a Fibre Channel Zone Server.


          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 number of
   issues in SMI syntax and documentation, and triggered an allocation
   adventure with Technical Committee T11.

   The allocation adventure began because development of one of the
   MIBs in this draft required T11 to allocate a value from the FC-SW-5
   standard that did not have a working draft at the time.  T11
   initially used an informal ad-hoc allocation method, and
   inadvertently did it twice, resulting in two different values.
   After strong remonstrations to T11 from the IMSS WG chair and others,
   T11 instituted a formal allocation process, resulting in the T11
   plenary formally voting to adopt a document that records the
allocation.
   That document (T11/06-679v0) is now part of T11's permanent archive
   and is the reference for the value used in this draft.

          Personnel
             Document Shepherd: David L. Black
             Responsible Area Director: Dan Romascanu

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