RE: Request for publication and proto write-up for draft- ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt on the standards track

OK, I have requested IETF Last Call.
I have also created an RFC-Editor note (to address my remaining comment that
I reported earlier):
 
  Note to RFC Editor
 
  - Pls fix the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY (page 17):
 
  OLD:
                Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). The initial
                version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX;
                for full legal notices see the RFC itself.
                Supplementary information may be available at:
                http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html <http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html> ."
  NEW:
                Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). The initial
                version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX;
                for full legal notices see the RFC itself."
 
 
If all goes well, we may be able to put this doc on Jan 5 IESG telechat.
 
Bert
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Francois Mule [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 17:41
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]
Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [ipcdn] Request for publication and proto write-up for draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt on the standards track


Bert and all,
 
   This note is the request for publication and proto write-up for 
draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt. 
 
Let us know if you have any questions or concerns with the above by
sending txt to the ipcdn list. Thank you Rich and Kevin for your 
continued efforts and big thanks to Randy, Bert et al. for the detailed
and constructive MIB doctor and expert reviews.
 
Jean-François
[email protected]
IPCDN co-chair.
 
The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used for the IPCDN Cable Device MIB v2 Internet-Draft.
 
Here is the proposed PROTO writeup for:
Cable Device Management Information Base for Data-Over-Cable Service
Interface Specification Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem
                          Termination Systems
                    draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10
 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt
 
 
Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
Obsoletes: RFC 2669
PROTO shepherd: Jean-Francois Mule (IPCDN WG co-chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?
 
Yes.
One of the 2 IPCDN co-chairs is a co-author and the other is the PROTO
shepherd writing this note. Both have reviewed this version of the ID.
Based on the WG comments, MIB doctors & AD review comments, the ID is
believed to be ready for publication.
 
 
   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?
 
Yes, reviews from both subject-matter experts that are WG members and
MIB doctors who provided valuable comments to improve the quality of
the MIB module.
 
 
        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
 
No, given the time this ID has been in existence and the number of
revisions due to comments.
 
 
   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
 
No.
 
   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
 
No. The IETF 63 meeting was dedicated to addressing all the remaining
WG comments and the draft update does close those open issues. No other
concerns from the PROTO shepherd.
 
   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 represents the WG consensus as a whole: the WG as a whole
understands and agrees with it.
 
   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
 
No. An explicit request for intent to appeal was made on the list on
November 25, 2005.
 
   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see  http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html) <http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html%29> .
 
The ID nits checker (v1.82) was ran on Nov 25 2005 and found no issues.
idnits 1.82 output:
-----------
tmp/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt:
 
 
  Checking nits according to  http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html <http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html> :
 
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
 
    the boilerplate looks good.
    No nits found.
 
  Checking nits according to  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt <http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt> :
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).
 
  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.
 
    No nits found.
---------------
 
 
   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
 
Yes.
 
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
 
No.
 
   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:
 
        *    Technical Summary
 
        *    Working Group Summary
 
        *    Protocol Quality
Ok.
 
   1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.
 
--- Technical Summary
 
   This document is a revision of the standards track RFC 2669.
   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 a basic set of managed objects for SNMP-
   based management of DOCSIS-compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem
   Termination Systems.
 
 
--- Working Group Summary
 
   The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as a
   Proposed Standard.
 
 
--- Protocol Quality
 
   The MIB module has been reviewed by Randy Presuhn. The overall quality
   with respect to DOCSIS functionality has been reviewed by Greg White
   and Eduardo Cardona. This document has been reviewed for the IESG by
   Bert Wijnen.
 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:12 PM

> To: Jean-Francois Mule; Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected]

> Subject: RE: Advancing draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt on the

> standards track

> 

> I did a last check of the document.

> 

> - In the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY you state:

>                 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). The initial

>                 version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX;

>                 for full legal notices see the RFC itself.

>                 Supplementary information may be available at:

>                 http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html."

>   Those last two lines can go away. This is not an IANA maintained

>   MIB module, so their copyrights have nothing to do with this.

> 

> You can consider that as an early IETF Last Call comment, and we can

> fix it with a note to RFC-Editor if this is all that gets reported.

> 

> So I am ready for IETF Last Call as soon as I get the PROTO report,

> which comes with a "request to publish as Proposed Standard" (and

> plx send to [email protected] and copy me).

> 

> Bert

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn