RE: PROTO preparation for DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt

Thanks Rick for preparing the PROTO write up

The answers to the questions reflect my understanding of the current
status of the ID

Thanks

Eduardo
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Woundy @ Comcast 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:03 PM
To: Eduardo Cardona
Cc: Ipcdn (E-mail)
Subject: PROTO preparation for DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB
draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt

Eduardo and members of the IPCDN working group,

Prior to the November IETF meeting in Vancouver, Eduardo Cardona
produced version -14 of the DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB, in response to comments
from the AD review by Bert Wijnen. There were no further technical
comments at the IETF meeting or on the IPCDN mailing list.

I understand that version -14 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-docs-rfmibv2-14.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-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt