RE: PROTO preparation for IPCDN MTA MIB draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt

Rich,

   Thanks for the proto write-up. It reflects my understanding of the ID status as a co-author.

Jean-François

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:03 PM
> To: Eugene Nechamkin; Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: PROTO preparation for IPCDN MTA MIB draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-
> mtamib-09.txt
> 
> Jean-François, Eugene, and members of the IPCDN working group,
> 
> At the November IETF meeting in Vancouver, we discussed modifications
> to the PacketCable/IPCableCom MTA MIB version -07; the recommended
> changes were incorporated in version -08. Version -08 prompted a
> comment from Bert Wijnen about a missing citation for RFC3629, and a
> comment from Randy Presuhn about UTF-8 encoding in RFC2279 vs. RFC3629
> (six octet encoding maximum versus four octet encoding maximum). These
> comments prompted modifications that are incorporated in version -09.
> 
> I understand that version -09 of the draft is considered complete, so
> I am working on the PROTO write-up. The PROTO process is defined in
> draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt.
> 
> There are a couple of questions we need to answer as a WG. See below
> my proposed responses which I think represent the WG status.  If my
> responses are not representative of the WG consensus or incorrect, or
> if you have any comments, questions or concerns, please let me know by
> Friday January 13 2006.
> 
> This is for: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-
> mtamib-09.txt
> 
>    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.
> 
>    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.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.
> 
> If anyone would appeal - please let me know
> ([email protected]). Otherwise I assume that no one has
> threatened an appeal.
> 
> Richard Woundy
> PROTO shepherd for draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt