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

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:56:39 -0500

Bert and all,

This note is the request for publication and proto write-up for the
IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft, draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt. 

If you have any questions or concerns with the above, please send email
to the IPCDN list.

Thank you Jean-Francois and Eugene for your continued efforts and big
thanks to Randy Presuhn, Dave Thaler, Bert Wijnen et al. for the
detailed and constructive MIB doctor and expert reviews.

Richard Woundy
IPCDN Co-Chair

The PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt)
is being used for the IPCDN MTA MIB internet-draft.

Here is the PROTO writeup for:

Multimedia Terminal Adapter (MTA) Management Information Base for
PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant devices
(draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.txt 

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

One of the 2 IPCDN co-chairs is a co-author and the other is the PROTO
shepherd writing this note. Both have reviewed this version of the ID.
Based on the WG comments, MIB doctors & AD review comments, the ID is
believed to be ready for publication.

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

        Do you 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) 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. Most of the remaining WG comments were addressed at the IETF 64
meeting, and the draft update does resolve those open issues. There are
no other concerns from the PROTO shepherd.
 
   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.
 
No. An explicit request for intent to appeal was made on the list on
January 10 2006.
 
   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
 
There are no ID nits issues per the automated ID nits check (version
1.84) at:
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib/draft-ietf-
ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-09.nits.txt>.

   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.)
 
No.

Note that there is a normative reference to the DOCSIS Cable Device MIB,
draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-10.txt -- this draft has just completed
its own IETF Last Call.

Also note that there is an informative reference to the
PacketCable/IPCablecom NCS Signaling MIB,
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-10.txt.

   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 portion of the Management Information Base
   (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
   community.  In particular, it defines a basic set of managed objects
   for SNMP-based management of PacketCable and IPCablecom compliant 
   Multimedia Terminal Adapter devices. 

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

--- Protocol Quality
 
   The MIB module has been reviewed by Dave Thaler and Randy Presuhn; an
   earlier version of this MIB module was reviewed by Mike Heard.  The
   document has been reviewed by PacketCable/IPCablecom subject matter
   experts such as Thomas Anders, Sumanth Channabasappa, Satish Kumar,
and
   Matt Osman.  This document has been reviewed for the IESG by
   Bert Wijnen.

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