[VRRP] Publication request draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Mon, 03 January 2011 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537063A6A0E; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:03:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XId15x8-RMb9; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358913A69F1; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so13302168iyi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:05:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dU9rdEDxoGdYg6BmnijhtLcNXNNcGZz5o4o11JKNjLY=; b=eptHI/NRZU8ePJUPewohl9z7Ndn7Ar7YCeZpa38LLM8a8e6aFhDMxGr8tHFuwD6Q/Y UJTY0z15E5hVnEcmtc6pSUhYKsoEOLVqc2dHTXfGf5SlOXeb8gxonTK7WZykR+06Mu5B bWbwVvb2T6fcBaYLUWeA7zepiREGKr8mTehok=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=r++30uxy9UQUtimNvbDgbhZMJZ0nSUzu7ITE91DQ1eQbZ4NkPrVrzAPQ4v42rWKgYR oCJaH2iz8myGioUH9FG0OIKsPaP8Uezi73+qe2HkxnJZNkoIqfMDbxMvbFNQourNrJgY 1fzOgIAbncOF9mxLIBROlaxmhINI/2Rl5nsPA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id w6mr21202017icz.135.1294070704999; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:05:04 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinpHmsCC-NJhwZPCuWCrbNJjJuOxxmdYbk-XZ_Z@mail.gmail.com>
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
To: ietf-secretariat@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: vrrp@ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] Publication request draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:03:06 -0000

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Radia Perlman

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?


(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?


(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?


(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?

No, and I believe, not applicable

If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

(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?

Strong concurrence

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme


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.)

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits?

Yes.  However there is a warning that the copyright year does not
match the current year, since it

is now 2011.

(See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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?

Yes.  (and MIB doctor was Joan Cucchiara )

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and


Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear


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].

(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


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 [RFC5226]. 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?

(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  (MIB doctor verified this)

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up?

 This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for
 VRRP Version 3 (which simultaneously supports both IPv4
   and IPv6) as defined in RFC 5798

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.      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


Document Quality
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Huawei has implemented it, and there may be others.

Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification?

Not to my knowledge, but that does not mean "no".

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?

Media Type review not applicable.  MIB doctor review by Joan Cucchiara
was very helpful, as was

earlier review by Dave Thaler.