1 week WGLC: RFC 2613 (SMON-MIB) Advancement

Advancement request for RFC 2613
WG Chair: Andy Bierman
Doc Shep: Andy Bierman <[email protected]>

--------------------------------

   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?

   A: Yes.  This document is ready for advancement to DS.
      An implementation report is on file with the IESG:
     
      http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC2613-Implementation.txt

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
   
   A: The document has been fully reviewed.

   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.)?

   A: There are no concerns regarding further 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.

   A: There are no further issues that the IESG should be aware of.

   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?
  
   A: The is strong WG consensus for this document.

   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.

   A: There have been no appeals threatened or objections raised
      to advancing this document from PS to DS.

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

   A: No. RFC 2613 does not adhere to current ID nits.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        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.)

   A: No, the document is not split into normative and informative
      references.  This document is waiting for RFC 2021 to advance
      from PS to DS.  There are no other pending dependencies.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.
   In particular, it defines objects for managing remote network
   monitoring devices in switched networks environments.

   An implementation report was filed in December 2002 for this
   document:

   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC2613-Implementation.txt

   Based on this report, and even more widespread implementation
   of this document since that time, the RMONMIB WG has consensus
   to advance this document from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.


        *    Working Group Summary

   The RMONMIB WG has consensus to publish this document as a 
   Draft Standard.  This document has gone through IETF Last Call
   in 2003, but has a normative reference to RFC 2021, so it has
   been waiting for that document to advance to Draft Standard.
   Now that RFC 2021 advancement has been approved by the IESG,
   this document may now advance as well.

        *    Protocol Quality
    
    This document has been reviewed by the RMONMIB WG and implemented
    by several vendors in network switching equipment.