[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ipcdn] RE: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt on the standards track
I got the following response from the iesg-secretary.
>The draft is already in the I-D Tracker in Stae AD Evaluation.
Can we still initiate an IETF Last Call?
-- Rich
________________________________
From: Woundy, Richard
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 10:25 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); iesg-secretary at ietf.org
Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Subject: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt on the standards track
Bert and all,
This note is the request for publication and proto write-up for the IPCDN DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB internet-draft, draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt, as a Proposed Standard.
If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please send email to the IPCDN list.
Thank you Eugene for your continued efforts and big thanks to Randy, Bert 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 DOCSIS RFIv2 MIB internet-draft.
Here is the proposed PROTO writeup for:
Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information Base for DOCSIS 2.0 compliant RF interfaces
(draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.txt
Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
Obsoletes: RFC 2670
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.
Both IPCDN co-chairs reviewed this version of the ID. Based on the WG comments, MIB doctors & AD review comments, we believe the ID is 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. The internet-draft was produced prior to the IETF 64 meeting, based on comments from the AD review. No further issues were raised on this internet-draft at the IETF 64 meeting, nor subsequently on the WG mailing list. 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 1.82) at:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14.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.
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 is a revision of the standards track RFC 2670, and
defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for
use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it defines a set of managed objects for SNMP-based
management of the Radio Frequency (RF) interfaces for systems
compliant with the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications
(DOCSIS).
--- 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 Randy Presuhn. The overall quality
with respect to DOCSIS functionality has been reviewed by many
IPCDN technical experts. 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