Subject: [ipcdn] FW: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.txt on the standards track

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:24:35 -0500

Below is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for the PacketCable/IPCablecom
Management Event MIB, as part of the PROTO process defined in
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shephe
rding-08.txt>.

Please send any comments or objections to the IPCDN mailing list.

Thanks.

-- Richard Woundy, IPCDN co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Woundy, Richard 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:22 PM
To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'WG Milestone Tracker'
Cc: 'Jean-Francois Mule'; Woundy, Richard
Subject: Request for publication and PROTO writeup for
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.txt on the standards track

Folks,

This email is the Document Shepherd Write-Up and request for publication
for the IPCDN internet-draft "Management Event MIB for
PacketCable/IPCablecom MTAs", draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.txt.

If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please send email
to the IPCDN list. (This email will be forwarded to the IPCDN mailing
list separately.)

Thank you Wim, Eugene, and Sumanth for your continued editorial efforts,
and a big thanks to David Harrington, Randy Presuhn, Bert Wijnen, Greg
Nakanishi, Satish Kumar et. al. for their constructive expert reviews.

Richard Woundy
IPCDN Co-Chair

***

The PROTO process (per draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08) is
being used for the IPCDN internet-draft:

"Management Event MIB for PacketCable/IPCablecom MTAs",
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.txt,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.t
xt 

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: Richard Woundy (IPCDN WG Co-Chair)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (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?

Richard Woundy (IPCDN co-chair) is the Document Shepherd, and he has
personally reviewed this version of the internet-draft.

Based on the Document Shepherd review and WG discussion, this version is
ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication, with two minor
caveats:

1. The internet-draft uses the ISOC Copyright and disclaimer from RFC
3978, rather than from RFC 4748. RFC 4748 was published after the last
version of this internet-draft was posted.

2. According to verbose checking by id-nits, "The page length should not
exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 2 longer pages, the longest
(page 4) being 60 lines". This appears to be caused by a document
formatting error.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from 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.

                                       Does the Document Shepherd 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)  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 internet-draft requires a formal MIB Doctor review.

David Harrington has offered some preliminary MIB doctor comments, which
were incorporated in version -08 of the draft.

   (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.

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 messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (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?

There were no ID nits issues per the automated idnits check (version
1.114) at:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess/draft-ie
tf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-09.nits.txt>.

However, using the *updated* idnits check (version 1.123) with the
verbose setting yielded the following concerns:

  - This document has ISOC Copyright according to RFC 3978, instead of
the
    newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748.  You should
consider
    updating it; the new Copyright statement will be required from
February
    1st, 2007
  - In addition to a regular copyright notice, the document also has a
    copyright notice embedded in the text.
  - This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer,
instead of
    the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC
4748. 
    You should consider updating it; the new disclaimer will be required
from
    February 1st, 2007
  - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 2
    longer pages, the longest (page 4) being 60 lines

These issues were discussed in section (1.a) above.

The internet-draft requires a formal MIB Doctor review.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?

Yes.

                        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?

There are two normative references to unpublished documents:

   [RFCXYZ]  Nechamkin, E., and Mule J., "Multimedia Terminal Adapter   
      (MTA) Management Information Base for PacketCable and IPCablecom 
      compliant devices", RFCXYZ, <Date>.

* This internet-draft is on the RFC Editor's Queue, to be published soon
as RFC 4682 (Proposed Standard).

   [RFCABC] Glenn Mansfield Keeni, "Syslog Management Information  
      Base", RFCABC, <Date>.

* This internet-draft is within the domain of the SYSLOG WG, co-chaired
by David Harrington and Chris Lonvick, and the responsible AD is Sam
Hartman. The SYSLOG MIB module internet-draft completed WGLC on 9/29,
and is being reviewed by David Harrington. Note that David is likely to
be assigned as the MIB Doctor of draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess.

Here is some relevant SYSLOG mailing list items on the SYSLOG MIB, in
chronological order:

<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01236.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01250.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01252.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01256.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01259.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01342.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01343.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01344.html>
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01350.html>

                                          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].

According to the check at
<http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?doc=draft-ietf-ipcdn-pk
tc-eventmess>, there are no normative references that are downward
references.

(Note: this assumes that the SYSLOG MIB is published as a Proposed
Standard.)

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration 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?

The IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document.

IANA is requested to assign the value for the root OBJECT IDENTIFIER
'pktcIetfEventMib' in the SMI Numbers registry.

          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 suggested a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].

The document does not create a new registry.

                                                        If the document
          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document does not describe an 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?

The libsmi web interface was used to compile this MIB, which yielded the
following (expected) errors and warnings:

mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:19: [1] {module-not-found} failed to locate MIB
module `SYSLOG-MIB'

* This is due to the dependency on the SYSLOG MIB, defined in
draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib.

mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:73: [2] {bad-identifier-case} `XXX' should
start with a lower case letter
mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:73: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object
identifier element `XXX' name only allowed as first element

* The root OBJECT IDENTIFIER value 'pktcIetfEventMib' will be assigned
by IANA after IESG approval.

mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:263: [2] {basetype-unknown} type
`SyslogSeverity' of node `pktcDevEventClassSeverityLevel' does not
resolve to a known base type
mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:520: [2] {basetype-unknown} type
`SyslogSeverity' of node `pktcDevEventDescrSeverityLevel' does not
resolve to a known base type
mibs/PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB:219: [2] {type-unknown} unknown type
`SyslogSeverity'

* This is due to the dependency on the SYSLOG MIB, defined in
draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib.

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

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)

for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.  
In particular, it provides a common data and format representation 
for events generated by PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant 
Multimedia Terminal Adapter devices.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
             example, was there controversy about particular points or
             were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
             rough?

The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as a Proposed
Standard.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             review, on what date was the request posted?

The original PacketCable 1.5 Management Event MIB is very similar to the
MIB module defined in this internet-draft; see
<http://www.packetcable.com/downloads/specs/PKT-SP-EVEMIB1.5-I02-050812.
pdf>.

The WG expectation is that CableLabs will require implementation of the
final (RFC) version of this internet-draft for PacketCable 2.0 certified
user equipment.

The ETSI "AT Working Group Digital" has also indicated their interest in
publication of this internet-draft as an RFC; note the liaison to the
IPCDN WG at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file55.pdf>.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Richard Woundy, and the Responsible Area
Director is Dan Romascanu.

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