[Hubmib] Submission of draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05 for consideration as Proposed Standard
"Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 28 September 2006 09:35 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsIU-0003y5-Lf; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:35:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsIT-0003xn-3x for hubmib@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:35:13 -0400
Received: from nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSsIR-0001zl-Le for hubmib@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:35:13 -0400
Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k8S9OSML032675 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:24:29 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:35:05 +0300
Message-ID: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0B55C09A@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Submission of draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05 for consideration as Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: Acbi4V14r1IrKrFTQTi6+1u/JCy/Gw==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>
X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail
X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198
Cc: IETF Hub MIB Working Group <hubmib@ietf.org>
Subject: [Hubmib] Submission of draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05 for consideration as Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG <hubmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:hubmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org
David, On behalf of the HUBMIB WG, please accept draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05 for consideration as Proposed Standard. Here is the proto write-up according to draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Dan Romascanu 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? Yes. There were a couple of comments entered after the WGLC and publication of version 05, and the recommendation of the WG is that they be considered initial comments in the IETF LC. (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? The document went through several editing cycles in the WG and received a number of comments for improvement. Mike Heard from the MIB Doctors team performed a early review and during WGLC it was announced for early review on the MIB Doctors list. Comments were also received from participants who are active in ITU-T Q10/4 and IEEE 802.3 Working Group. (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 special concerns, but MIB Doctor review, Security Directorate review and GenArt review should be performed. (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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 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? The WG is not large in numbers nowadays. However, the number and nature of the contribution and comments show strong consensus and constructive collaboration behind this document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd 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. Yes. (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, no references holes or problems. (1.i) 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines objects for managing IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs). The previous version of this memo, RFC 3636 [RFC3636], defined a single MIB module. This memo splits the original MIB module into two, putting frequently updated object identities and textual conventions into a separate, IANA-maintained MIB module, in order to decrease the need of updating the basic MAU MIB module. The first version of the IANA-maintained MIB module also extends the list of managed objects to support Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) and 10GBASE-CX4 interfaces. 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? The document went through several editing cycles in the WG, WGLC and received a number of comments for improvement. The WG is not large in numbers nowadays. However, the number and nature of the contribution and comments show strong consensus and constructive collaboration behind this document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? We are aware about at least one implementation in progress. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? At the initiation of this work around twelve individuals representing different vendors organizations expressed interest for this work, and potential intentions to implement it. 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? Mike Heard did a early MIB Doctor review. We also received comments from participants who are active in ITU-T Q10/4 and IEEE 802.3 Working Group. _______________________________________________ Hubmib mailing list Hubmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
- [Hubmib] Submission of draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636b… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)