Subject: [netlmm] Request to publish draft-ietf-netlmm-pmibv6-mib

From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN-FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 13:09:51 +0300

Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-netlmm-pmibv6-mib

# (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?

Document Shepherd is Jonne Soininen (WG co-Chair for NETLMM). I have
personally 
processed and reviewed the document and I do believe - as much as I
understand the MIB - the document is ready to be
forwarded 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 has had as much review as we could get for a MIB. I have no
personal concerns about the reviews.

# (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?

This document needs to be reviewed by the MIB doctors.

# (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. 

I have no concerns on the document.

# (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?

The WG consensus is behind this document.

# (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.)

Nobody has threatened to appeal.

# (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?

Yes, I run the nits script on the draft and it gave no warnings or errors

# (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].

There is a split to normative and informative references.
There is no normative document that would be in a dubious state.

# (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?

Yes, IANA considerations section does exist and seems to be in line with the
rest of the document.

# (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?

This is a MIB. I used http://www.simpleweb.org/ietf/mibs/validate/ and I
think everything went ok. It complained on some parts of the descriptions.
(Mostly "'" within description or a reserved word word within the
description texts). However, I thought this would be an error of the tool
rather than the MIB.

I might be wrong, though.

# (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
   This is the MIB for Proxy Mobile IPv6.

Working Group Summary
   There is a consensus in Netlmm WG that this specification is ready to be
   published as a proposed standard.

Document Quality
  The document has gone through reviews and a successful WGLC.

Personel
   Responsible AD is Jari Arkko and the document shepherd is Jonne Soininen.