[MBONED] Publication Requested for draft-ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-05
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Wed, 21 March 2007 11:30 UTC
Return-path: <mboned-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTz1M-0003LF-7q; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:30:24 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTz1J-0003F7-5r for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:30:21 -0400
Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTz1H-0004Jy-LY for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:30:21 -0400
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 6339188 for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:30:18 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <55292972-F884-4336-AB60-90EF2C762DBD@multicasttech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
To: mboned@ietf.org
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:30:17 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bc6181926481d86059e678c9f7cb8b34
Subject: [MBONED] Publication Requested for draft-ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-05
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org
As proto-shepherd for this document, and WG Chair, I have requested publication of this document, which can be found on the IETF site. The proto-shepherd writeup. is attached below. There is one Normative reference [I-D.mcwalter-langtag-mib] which is not an RFC but which I am told is in final IESG review. The id- nits program reports this as an error, but of course that should be fixed soon. Regards Marshall Eubanks ------------------------------------ As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 1, 2007. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? Marshall Eubanks is the Document Shepherd. I have reviewed the last 3 versions of this document and think it is ready for forwarding to the IESG. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes, the document has been reviewed by key members of the Mboned WG, both before and after its adoption by the WG. WG Comments were received and then incorporated into subsequent versions. It has also received a detailed review by Keith McCloghrie a MIB guru. (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? No. (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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. 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? There is a solid WG consensus behind this document; it is long overdue. (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. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? We have had some review by MIB doctors but I believe that the IESG will request a formal review by another MIB doctor. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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? 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]. Yes, references are split. The normative referenced are all in a clear state (11 RFCs, plus one individual submission in IESG last call). There are normative downward references, but these are to well-known BCPs, listed below. All other normative references are to standards track drafts/RFCs. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC 2365, July 1998. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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? There is an IANA consideration section. It calls for an addition to the IP-MCAST-MIB module. It does not create a new registry. (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? The Shepherd understands that Keith McCloghrie and Bill Fenner have validated the MIB. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This MIB describes general objects used for managing IP multicast function, including IP multicast routing; objects specific to particular multicast protocols are defined elsewhere. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was strong support in the MBONED WG for the adoption of this document. There was a general consensus that this MIB addition was overdue. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is largely based on RFC2932 and will make it obsolete. There are many implementations of RFC2932 and there are implementations of earlier versions of this draft. Cisco Systems has implemented an earlier version of this draft and Data Connection Ltd has implemented a version of this draft. This MIB has been reviewed by Keith McCloghrie as a MIB guru. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed? Marshall Eubanks is the document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Area Director. An IANA expert is not required but a final review by a MIB doctor is expected. (end) _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
- [MBONED] Publication Requested for draft-ietf-mbo… Marshall Eubanks