Subject: [MBONED] Publication Requested for draft-ietf-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-05

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:30:17 -0400

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned