RFC publication has just been requested for the VF MIB
draft. The
PROTO process (cf.
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used. Here is the PROTO writeup:
PROTO writeup:
The Virtual Fabrics MIB
draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-01.txt
Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IMSS 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. There are (at least) a couple of minor editing
problems that can
be addressed during MIB Doctor Review or after IETF Last
Call:
- A character has been dropped from the title of Section 7 -
the title
should be: The T11-FC-VIRTUAL-FABRIC-MIB Module (not
-IRTUAL-)
- The [FC-FAM-MIB] reference is out of date. The current
version of
that draft is draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-03.txt .
1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key
WG members
and key non-WG members?
Yes. This document has been reviewed by Fibre Channel
experts in
Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards
organization)
in addition to members of the IMSS WG, and the IMSS WG's MIB
expert.
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.
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?
It's hard to distinguish the two cases due to somewhat thin
WG membership.
There is solid support for this document both in the WG and
from T11.
1.f) [... not distributed to the WG ...]
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 complains about a boilerplate
paragraph being split
across pages, which is not an actual problem. Everything
else is fine.
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 is one normative reference to an Internet-Draft:
draft-desanti-fc-fabric-addr-mgr-mib-0x.txt - As noted
above, this draft
has been replaced, and hence this reference should be to
draft-ietf-imss-fc-fam-mib-03.txt, which is already in the
RFC Editor's
Queue.
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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information
Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in
the
Internet community. In particular, it describes managed
objects for information related to the Fibre Channel
network's Virtual Fabric function.
-- Working Group Summary
This document was reviewed in the IMSS WG and in
Technical Committee
T11 (the official Fibre Channel standards body). T11
voted to
recommend a prior version of this document to the IETF.
-- Protocol Quality
The protocol has been reviewed for the IMSS WG by Keith
McCloghrie.
An approval announcement will need to credit a MIB Doctor
as having
reviewed this for the IESG as Keith is both an author of
this draft
and the IMSS WG's MIB expert.
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imssietf.org
https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
|