[PWE3] PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12

The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
of this document.

(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?

Danny McPherson ([e-mail]) is the Shepherd. I have
reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.

    (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?

This document (-10 revision) has been reviewed by the WG, both through
the LC process (ending 2007-06-22), and at IETF WG meetings. There
were minor comments during the two week LC that has completed.   All
other comments were addressed in response to the LC query and seem
to have satisfied the initiators.

I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document.

    (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?

I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review of
this document, although MIB Doctor review needs to occur and a
good bit of coordination has already occurred on that front per
MIB Doctor author participation on this document.

    (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
   From [e-mail] Thu Jan 24 16:29:03 2008
Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JI9d7-0001Y3-Ox; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:29:01 -0500
Received: from pwe3 by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JI9d6-0001Xu-As
	for [e-mail]; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:29:00 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JI9d5-0001Xm-VL; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:29:00 -0500
Received: from dog.tcb.net ([64.78.150.133])
	by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JI9d5-00043I-2r; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:28:59 -0500
Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0)
	id 8F36E2680CE; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:28:58 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [10.111.102.1] (division.aa.arbor.net [152.160.38.65])
	(authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128)
	by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:28:57 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from [e-mail])
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:28:41 -0700
To: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 202a3ece0492a8c7e7c8672d5214398f
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>, David Zelig <[e-mail]>,
	pwe3 <[e-mail]>, Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>,
	Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: [PWE3] PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12

The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
of this document.

(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?

Danny McPherson ([e-mail]) is the Shepherd. I have
reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.

    (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?

This document (-10 revision) has been reviewed by the WG, both through
the LC process (ending 2007-06-22), and at IETF WG meetings. There
were minor comments during the two week LC that has completed.   All
other comments were addressed in response to the LC query and seem
to have satisfied the initiators.

I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document.

    (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?

I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review of
this document, although MIB Doctor review needs to occur and a
good bit of coordination has already occurred on that front per
MIB Doctor author participation on this document.

    (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.

I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.

    (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 is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
WG.  There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
and it is generally supported across the WG.

    (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 one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
document.

    (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?

No.  MIB Doctor review has been initiated, although not yet
complete.  There has been involvement of MIB Doctor folks
with this document already.

    (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?  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.  Normative references to PWMIB and PWTC are only comments,
with both documents currently in the IESG Processing queue.


    (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 suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

The IANA Consideration Section of the document provides the
following IANA and RFC Editor Guidance, which we believe to
be straight-forward and reasonable:

---
  The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
    OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

          Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
          ----------        -----------------------

          pwCepStdMIB        { mib-2 XXXX }

    Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
    requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and
    to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry.  When the
        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.

I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.

    (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 is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
WG.  There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
and it is generally supported across the WG.

    (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 one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
document.

    (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?

No.  MIB Doctor review has been initiated, although not yet
complete.  There has been involvement of MIB Doctor folks
with this document already.

    (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?  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.  Normative references to PWMIB and PWTC are only comments,
with both documents currently in the IESG Processing queue.


    (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 suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

The IANA Consideration Section of the document provides the
following IANA and RFC Editor Guidance, which we believe to
be straight-forward and reasonable:

---
  The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
    OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

          Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
          ----------        -----------------------

          pwCepStdMIB        { mib-2 XXXX }

    Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
    requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and
    to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry.  When the
    assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX"
    (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove
    this note.
---

    (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?

No, although we have verified this with the authors.  We have
also initiated MIB Doctor review on this document.

    (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 modeling SONET/SDH
circuits over a Packet Switch Network (PSN).

           Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG
and there are no outstanding issues.

           Protocol Quality

This is a very simple and well written, no protocol issues are
anticipated and no outstanding technical issues exist..

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Danny McPherson ([e-mail])

              Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mark Townsley ([e-mail])



_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3