Subject: [ipcdn] Advancing draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt on the standards track

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 18:39:32 -0500

Jean-Francois,

I have posted an updated version of the DOCSIS Cable Device MIB,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.tx
t>, which I believe is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication
as an RFC with the status of Proposed Standard.

I believe this draft incorporates the resolutions of the four open
issues raised in
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01690.html>, as
clarified by
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01781.html>. I
will send details in a separate email.

I also believe this draft satisfies the AD review concerns raised in
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01692.html>. I
will send details in another separate email.

Please approve this draft for advancement.

-- Rich

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

---

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:10:29 -0700

Rich and all,

  Based on our November IETF64 meeting, the draft is considered complete and there were no additional comments in the past 2 weeks.

 I'm almost done doing the PROTO write-up for the CDmibv2. The PROTO process is defined in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt.

  There are a couple of questions we need to answer as a wg. See below my proposed responses which I think represent the wg status.  If my responses are not representative of the wg consensus or incorrect, or if you have any comments, questions or concerns, please let me know by Friday 12/2/2005.

This is for:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?
Yes, 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.

   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.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.

Sending this draft on some of the PROTO write-up questions for WG knowledge and to ask if anyone would appeal - please let me know ([email-masked]).

Jean-François
PROTO shepherd for draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:40 PM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: Bert Wijnen; [email-masked]
> Subject: Advancing draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt on the
> standards track
> 
> Jean-Francois,
>