(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. This is the correct type of RFC for this draft because the
draft is simply summarizing OIDs that have already been defined and
describing how any future OIDs should be allocated. This type is
indicated on the title page in the header.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
The primary technical content of this draft are object identifier
definitions. References to the original definitions are provided.
Working Group Summary
This document was not considered by a working group. It addresses object
identifiers defined by a closed working group.
Document Quality
The document does not define a protocol. The OID definitions and
references are correct. The IANA considerations appear to be sound.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Carl Wallace is the Document Shepherd. Sean Turner is the Responsible
Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.
I reviewed the OIDs contained in this document. There were some OIDs
reserved in the official OID arc that were not used in corresponding
documents. These OIDs have been marked as reserved in this document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.
The document does not require review from a broader perspective.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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 interested community has discussed those
issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
No concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed. If not, explain why.
There is only one author. There are no IPR disclosures required.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document to my
knowledge.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?
This document summarizes OIDs from documents that achieved WG consensus
and defines IANA allocation policies for any future related OID
definitions.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
No nits were found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews are required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
No. There is one Informative Reference to an I-D. This appropriate for
this document since the I-D defined OIDs present in the LTANS arc but was
abandoned prior to publication as an RFC.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
interested community considers it unnecessary.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The Document Shepherd reviewed the OIDs in the IANA Considerations section
and the OIDs defined in the referenced source documents.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The document requests modification to one registry (and four tables within
that registry).
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No automated checks were performed.