Subject: [imss] Publication Requested: SP MIB

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:21:34 -0400

RFC publication has just been requested for the SP MIB draft.  The
Doc Shepherding process (cf. RFC 4858) is being used.

Here is the Document Shepherd writeup:
Document Shepherd writeup:

            MIB for Fibre-Channel Security Protocols (FC-SP)
                   draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt

Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

David L. Black (imss WG Chair)

          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?

Yes.  An RFC Editor Note needs to be used to correct nits in one of the
references and numerous REFERENCE clauses:

[1] In Normative References
OLD
[FC-SP]
     "Fibre Channel - Security Protocols (FC-SP)", ANSI INCITS xxx-200x,
     http://www.t11.org/t11/stat.nsf/upnum/1570-d, T11/Project
     1570-D/Rev 1.8, 13 June 2003.

NEW
[FC-SP]
     "Fibre Channel - Security Protocols (FC-SP)", ANSI INCITS 426-2007,
     http://www.t11.org/t11/stat.nsf/upnum/1570-d, T11/Project
     1570-D, February 2007.

[2] In numerous REFERENCE clauses throughout the MIB modules
OLD
    REFERENCE
           "INCITS xxx/200x, T11/Project 1570-D/Rev 1.8,
           Fibre Channel - Security Protocols (FC-SP),
           13 June 2006, Appendix A.3.1, tables A.23, A.25."
NEW
    REFERENCE
           "ANSI INCITS 426-2007, T11/Project 1570-D,
           Fibre Channel - Security Protocols (FC-SP),
           February 2007, Appendix A.3.1, tables A.23, A.25."
NOTE
The section references (Appendix A.3.1, ...) are different
for each REFERENCE clause, and need to be preserved.

[3] In a couple of REFERENCE clauses in the MIB modules
OLD
           " - Fibre Channel - Framing and Signaling-2 (FC-FS-2),
           INCITS xxx/200x, Project T11/1619-D Rev 1.01,
           8 August 2006, section 9.3.
NEW
           " - Fibre Channel - Framing and Signaling-2 (FC-FS-2),
           ANSI INCITS 424-2007, Project T11/1619-D,
           February 2007, section 9.3.
NOTE
The section references (section 9.3) are different
for each REFERENCE clause, and need to be preserved.

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

          Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
          or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

   (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?

An OPS Area MIB Doctor review was performed during WG Last Call.  There
does not appear to be a need for additional external reviews.
 
   (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?

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)  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.

Yes.  The idnits checker (2.08.04) finds 2 lines with
"non-RFC3330-compliant
IPv4 addresses" - this is not an actual problem because these strings
are
actually section references into other standards.

          Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to,
          such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes, a MIB Doctor review occurred during WG Last Call, and the MIB
Doctor (Bert Wijnen) is satisfied with this version of the draft.

   (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?

No.  The RFC Editor Note requested under (1.a) above corrects what
appear to be normative references to in-progress documents.

          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].

No.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?

Yes.

          If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations
          requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the IANA
          registries clearly identified?

N/A.

          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].

N/A.

          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?

N/A.

   (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?

Yes, the Document Shepherd has relied on MIB Doctor review for the MIB
checks.

   (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

   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 FC-SP, the Security Protocols defined for Fibre Channel.

          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.

          Document Quality

   The protocol has been reviewed for the IMSS WG by Keith McCloghrie.

   The protocol has been reviewed for the IESG by David L. Black (imss
WG Chair).

   The MIB Doctor Review performed by Bert Wijnen found a number of
   issues in MIB structure, SMI syntax and documentation.

          Personnel
             Document Shepherd: David L. Black
             Responsible Area Director: Dan Romascanu

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss