[ipcdn] RE: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcd n-pktc-mtamib-09.txt on the standards track

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks,
I have now requested IETF Last Call.
Probably will show up on Monday.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 13:57
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) ; [e-mail]
> Cc: Jean-Francois Mule ; Eugene Nechamkin ; Ipcdn (E-mail) 
> Subject: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt on the standards track
> 
> 
> Bert and all,
> 
> This note is the request for publication and proto write-up for the
> IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft, draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt. 
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please 
> send email
> to the IPCDN list.
> 
> Thank you Jean-Francois and Eugene for your continued efforts and big
> thanks to Randy Presuhn, Dave Thaler, Bert Wijnen et al. for the
> detailed and constructive MIB doctor and expert reviews.
> 
> Richard Woundy
> IPCDN Co-Chair
> 
> 
> The PROTO process (cf. 
> draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
> is being used for the IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft.
> 
> Here is the PROTO writeup for:
> 
> Multimedia Terminal Adapter (MTA) Management Information Base for
> PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant devices
> (draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt)
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtam
> ib-09.txt 
> 
> Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
> PROTO shepherd: Richard Woundy (IPCDN WG Co-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.
> 
> One of the 2 IPCDN co-chairs is a co-author and the other is the PROTO
> shepherd writing this note. Both have reviewed this version of the ID.
> Based on the WG comments, MIB doctors & AD review comments, the ID is
> believed to be ready for publication.
>  
>  
>    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
>         and key non-WG members?
>  
> Yes, there have been reviews from both subject-matter experts that are
> WG members and MIB doctors who provided valuable comments to 
> improve the
> quality of the MIB module.
>  
>  
>         Do you have any concerns about the
>         depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>  
> No, given the time this ID has been in existence and the number of
> revisions due to comments.
>  
>  
>    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.)?
>  
> No.
>  
>    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. Most of the remaining WG comments were addressed at the IETF 64
> meeting, and the draft update does resolve those open issues. 
> There are
> no other concerns from the PROTO shepherd.
>  
>    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?
>  
> This document represents the WG consensus as a whole: the WG 
> as a whole
> understands and agrees with it.
>  
>    1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>         discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
>         separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
>  
> No. An explicit request for intent to appeal was made on the list on
> January 10 2006.
>  
>    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to 
> all of the
>         ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
>  
> There are no ID nits issues per the automated ID nits check (version
> 1.84) at:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib/d
> raft-ietf-
> ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.nits.txt>.
> 
>    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative 
> references?
>  
> Yes.
>  
>         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.)
>  
> No.
> 
> Note that there is a normative reference to the DOCSIS Cable 
> Device MIB,
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt -- this draft has just completed
> its own IETF Last Call.
> 
> Also note that there is an informative reference to the
> PacketCable/IPCablecom NCS Signaling MIB,
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-10.txt.
> 
>    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 document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>    (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
>    community.  In particular, it defines a basic set of 
> managed objects
>    for SNMP-based management of PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant 
>    Multimedia Terminal Adapter devices. 
>  
>  
> --- Working Group Summary
>  
>    The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as a
>    Proposed Standard.
>  
>  
> --- Protocol Quality
>  
>    The MIB module has been reviewed by Dave Thaler and Randy 
> Presuhn; an
>    earlier version of this MIB module was reviewed by Mike Heard.  The
>    document has been reviewed by PacketCable/IPCablecom subject matter
>    experts such as Thomas Anders, Sumanth Channabasappa, Satish Kumar,
> and
>    Matt Osman.  This document has been reviewed for the IESG by
>    Bert Wijnen.
>  
> 

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