[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ipcdn] RE: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcd n-pktc-mtamib-09.txt on the standards track
Thanks,
I have now requested IETF Last Call.
Probably will show up on Monday.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:Richard_Woundy at cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 13:57
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) ; iesg-secretary at ietf.org
> Cc: Jean-Francois Mule ; Eugene Nechamkin ; Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt on the standards track
>
>
> Bert and all,
>
> This note is the request for publication and proto write-up for the
> IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft, draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please
> send email
> to the IPCDN list.
>
> Thank you Jean-Francois and Eugene for your continued efforts and big
> thanks to Randy Presuhn, Dave Thaler, Bert Wijnen et al. for the
> detailed and constructive MIB doctor and expert reviews.
>
> Richard Woundy
> IPCDN Co-Chair
>
>
> The PROTO process (cf.
> draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
> is being used for the IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft.
>
> Here is the PROTO writeup for:
>
> Multimedia Terminal Adapter (MTA) Management Information Base for
> PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant devices
> (draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt)
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtam
> ib-09.txt
>
> Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
> PROTO shepherd: Richard Woundy (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, there have been 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. Most of the remaining WG comments were addressed at the IETF 64
> meeting, and the draft update does resolve those open issues.
> There are
> 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
> January 10 2006.
>
> 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to
> all of the
> ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
>
> There are no ID nits issues per the automated ID nits check (version
> 1.84) at:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib/d
> raft-ietf-
> ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.nits.txt>.
>
> 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.
>
> Note that there is a normative reference to the DOCSIS Cable
> Device MIB,
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt -- this draft has just completed
> its own IETF Last Call.
>
> Also note that there is an informative reference to the
> PacketCable/IPCablecom NCS Signaling MIB,
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-10.txt.
>
> 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
>
> This document 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 PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant
> Multimedia Terminal Adapter devices.
>
>
> --- 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 Dave Thaler and Randy
> Presuhn; an
> earlier version of this MIB module was reviewed by Mike Heard. The
> document has been reviewed by PacketCable/IPCablecom subject matter
> experts such as Thomas Anders, Sumanth Channabasappa, Satish Kumar,
> and
> Matt Osman. This document has been reviewed for the IESG by
> Bert Wijnen.
>
>
_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
IPCDN at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn