Publication Requested: iSNS MIB

Publication has just been requested on the iSNS MIB draft.  The
PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-06.txt)
is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:

PROTO writeup: 
               Definitions of Managed Objects for iSNS 
                   (Internet Storage Name Service) 
                   draft-ietf-ips-isns-mib-09.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG 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.  The chair has reviewed the text portions of the draft, and is
relying upon the WG's MIB Expert (Keith McCloghrie)'s review of the
MIB content.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes.
        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

   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.)?

Needs the usual IETF OPS Area MIB Doctor review.

   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 IESG should be aware that this is a monitoring-only MIB - it
cannot be used for configuration, as it contains no writeable objects.

   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?

There is solid support for this document within the WG, including
support for it being only for monitoring iSNS servers; it cannot do
configuration, and is not applicable to iSNS clients.

   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.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

The online nits checker says everything is ok.

   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.)

There are no normative references to Internet Drafts.

   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

   1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

-- Technical Summary

   The iSNS protocol provides storage name service functionality on 
   an IP network that is being used for iSCSI or iFCP storage. This 
   draft provides a mechanism to monitor multiple iSNS Servers, 
   including information about registered objects in an iSNS 
   Server. 

--  Working Group Summary

   This MIB was originally undertaken as a MIB for monitoring and
   configuration of both iSNS servers and clients, but ran into
   significant complexity and structural issues.  The scope of the
   MIB was reduced to server monitoring in order, as that comprised
   most of the interest in (and perceived value of) the MIB.

-- Protocol Quality

   The protocol has been reviewed for the ips WG by Keith McCloghrie.
   An approval announcement should credit a MIB Doctor as having
   reviewed this for the IESG.

Thanks,
--David (ips WG chair)
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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