Subject: [Adslmib] WG questionaire and write-up for draft-ietf-adslmib-adsl2-04.txt

From: "Ray, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:46:13 -0600

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.

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

YES.

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.

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 represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals with others
being silent.  This is how our working group has functioned for years. 

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.

1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
     ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

YES.

1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
     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.)

YES (it is split) and NO (there are no normative references to IDs).

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 defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module for use
with network management protocols in the Internet community.  In
particular, it describes objects used for managing parameters of the
"Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line" family of interface types,
especially including ADSL, ADSL2, and ADSL2+.

Working Group Summary:

The WG process was smooth and quick.  There were two minor controversies
raised:

1.  A desire to break out the textual conventions into a separate
document.  This was resolved by using Bert's solution to define the
textual conventions within one document using a separate MIB with the
understanding that if it becomes necessary to break them out into a separate
document later, we will still have that option.  All involved agreed
to this.

2.  A desire was voiced to expand and extend the document to cover VDSL2
(a closely related but critically different technology).  It was agreed
that if there was a desire to support VDSL2, the differences between the
technologies were such that VDSL2 would require a different document. All
involved agreed to this. 

Protocol Quality Summary:

1.  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

UNKNOWN.

2.  Have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to
implement the specification?

UNKNOWN.

3.  Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review (i.e., that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues)?

Other than those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section of the draft,
NO.

This document will continue to be shepherded by Bob Ray (co-chair).

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