[ipcdn] RE: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcd n-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt on the standards track

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

I will try to get onto this one this week

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 15:53
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt on the standards track
> 
> 
> I got the following response from the iesg-secretary.
>  
> >The draft is already in the I-D Tracker in Stae AD Evaluation.
>  
> Can we still initiate an IETF Last Call?
>  
> -- Rich
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Woundy, Richard
> Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:25 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [e-mail]
> Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for 
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt on the standards track
> 
> 
> 
> Bert and all, 
> 
> This note is the request for publication and proto write-up 
> for the IPCDN DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB internet-draft, 
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt, as a Proposed Standard.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please 
> send email to the IPCDN list. 
> 
> Thank you Eugene for your continued efforts and big thanks to 
> Randy, Bert 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 DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB internet-draft.
> 
> Here is the proposed PROTO writeup for: 
> 
> Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information Base 
> for DOCSIS 2.0 compliant RF interfaces 
> (draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt) 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmi
> bv2-14.txt 
> 
> 
> Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard 
> Obsoletes: RFC 2670 
> 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. 
> 
> Both IPCDN co-chairs reviewed this version of the ID. Based 
> on the WG comments, MIB doctors & AD review comments, we 
> believe the ID is 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. The internet-draft was produced prior to the IETF 64 
> meeting, based on comments from the AD review. No further 
> issues were raised on this internet-draft at the IETF 64 
> meeting, nor subsequently on the WG mailing list. 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 1.82) at: 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2/
draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.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. 

   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 is a revision of the standards track RFC 2670, and 
   defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for 
   use with network management protocols in the Internet community. 
   In particular, it defines a set of managed objects for SNMP-based 
   management of the Radio Frequency (RF) interfaces for systems 
   compliant with the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications 
   (DOCSIS). 

--- 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 Randy Presuhn. The overall quality 
   with respect to DOCSIS functionality has been reviewed by many 
   IPCDN technical experts. This document has been reviewed for the IESG by 
   Bert Wijnen. 

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