[Rserpool] request to publish draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-09.txt

Proto Writeup for this draft:

   (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Lyndon Ong. He has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes that it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has had adequate review from key WG members. The Document Shepherd has no particular concerns about the depth and breadth of the reviews.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The Document Shepherd has no particular concerns that the document needs more review.

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

The Document Shepherd has no particular additional concerns for the Area Director or IESG. The question of need was raised on the mailing list and elicited a number of responses from participants who were interested in the MIB. No IPR disclosures related to the document have been filed.

   (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 a firm WG consensus behind the document. It is (as a MIB) primarily of interest to a subset of participants in the WG, but has been reviewed and supported by WG members both interested in the MIB and familiar with the protocols that would be managed by the MIB.

   (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no dispute over the document or _expression_ of discontent.

   (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The Document Shepherd has checked the document against nits and as far as he could tell all nits have been satisfied. The document has not had a formal MIB Doctor review, however it has been run through an automated checker (see below). The document has its intended status (Experimental RFC) at the top of the first page.

   (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state? If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has allocated references to normative and informative. It should be noted that some normative references are to Experimental RFCs since the MIB is intended to manage protocols that have been defined in Experimental RFCs. This seems appropriate since the MIB itself will be Experimental.

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

As far as the Document Shepherd has been able to verify, the document’s IANA Considerations section exists and is in order. It does not describe any Expert Review process.

   (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

As mentioned above, the MIB definitions in the document have been run through an automated checker, in this case the smilint compiler package.

   (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

The Announcement Write-Up follows:

Technical Summary:

This document defines a SMIv2 compliant Management

Information Base (MIB) providing access to managed objects in an

implementation of the Reliable Server Pool architecture and protocols. It

is intended as an Experimental Track RFC.

Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by Rserpool protocol experts within the

WG and no controversy or difficulty was encountered with obtaining consensus

on this document.

Document Quality

There are no implementations of the MIB at this time, but

a number of researchers have implemented the protocols and reviewed the MIB

specification based on their work.

Personnel

Lyndon Ong, co-chair of the Rserpool WG, is shepherd for this document.

Magnus Westerlund provided review as the responsible Area Director.