xDSL Multi-Pair Bonding (G.Bond) MIB
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-02-15
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2012-08-09
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-08-09
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-08-06
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-07-30
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-07-27
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-07-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-07-25
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-25
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise by Cindy Morgan |
2012-07-16
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-07-16
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-07-16
|
11 | Edward Beili | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-11.txt |
2012-06-20
|
10 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised ID Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-05-08
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-29
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise from Dan Romascanu |
2012-03-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-03-15
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. I have a number of small Comments. They are non-blocking and you can … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. I have a number of small Comments. They are non-blocking and you can take them or leave them --- The shepherd write-up appears to disagree with the ballot write-up wrt implementations. I choose to believe the shepherd not the AD since the shepherd gives better news! --- It is not necessary to say the document "proposes". You can say "defines". --- Thanks for the detail in Section 4. It really helps. --- Question for you. How likely is it that new bonding schemes (i.e. other technologies) will come along and be handled by this MIB module without extensions? I think the intention is that this module is technology- independent, so that it would not need to be revised for a new bonding type. However, GBondSchemeList and GBondScheme are closed lists such that you would need to revise the module to support new technologies. That seems a shame. You could move the TCs into a separate module so that only that module needs to be revised. An alternative, is to define an IANA Textual convention for this and allow just the TC to be updated as necessary. --- I find the presence of 'unknown' as a bit in GBondSchemeList to be a bit odd. In general, bits in an object with a Syntax of Bits can be independently set. But here you could not set 'unknown' and any of the other bits. On the other hand, what would it mean to return the object with none of the bits set? Is that different from returning the 'unknown' bit? --- gBondLowUpRateCrossing Description s/port'/port's/ |
2012-03-15
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-03-15
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-03-15
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2012-03-13
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | Updated write-up from Menachem Dodge: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair. Has the Document Shepherd … Updated write-up from Menachem Dodge: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Menachem Dodge, Adslmib 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. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Yes. The document has been reviewed by both key WG members, and non-WG members. Comments from these reviews have been taken into account. 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? No. The AD provided feedback during the development of the document. In addition the document has been reviewed by several MIB doctors and by the Security-DIR. (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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. There are no specific concerns.The Broadband Forum TR-159 document provides a basis for this MIB module, as for all the G.Bond MIB modules, and this work was solicited by the Broadband forum.This I-D has appeared in the RFP of an operator and at least one vendor is known to be including this module within its products. No, there is no IPR disclosure related to the document. (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 is based on the Broadband Forum specification TR-159. The WG as a whole agrees with the document. (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? Yes, this document satisfies ID nits. This document has been reviewed by the MIB doctors. (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? No. If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? No. If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes. This document requests that: 1. Three new values of IANAifType: g9981, g9982 and g9983 be defined in the IANAifType-MIB module. 2. An object identifier for gBondMIB be allocated by IANA [1] in the MIB-2 transmission sub-tree. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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 has been reviewed by the MIB Doctors. (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. (1.k) Technical Summary This document proposes an extension to the Interfaces Group MIB with a set of common objects for managing multi-pair bonded Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) interfaces, defined in ITU-T recommendations G.998.1, G.998.2 and G.998.3. The MIB modules specific to each bonding technology are defined in GBOND-ATM-MIB, GBOND-ETH-MIB and GBOND-TDIM-MIB respectively. Working Group Summary The WG process was smooth with no real controversies. The document was reviewed by key members of the WG and by the MIB doctors and Security-DIR.Feedback from these reviews was taken into account and the I-D was updated accordingly. This work together with all of the other G.Bond documents is based on the guidelines set forward by the Broadband Forum TR-159. The Broadband Forum solicited this work and it is known that the G. Bond I-Ds have appeared in operator RFPs and this G.Bond MIB module is being implemented in at least one vendor's products. |
2012-03-12
|
10 | Edward Beili | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-10.txt |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] You might consider adding informational references for NTP and SNTP. |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Please update the document writeup and shepherd report to include information about review and implementation. |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-03-12
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-03-09
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-03-09
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-03-09
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-03-15 |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-07
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-01
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2012-02-28
|
09 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-02-24
|
09 | Miguel García | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Miguel Garcia. |
2012-02-18
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2012-02-18
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2012-02-17
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA has a question for the IESG (as well as the authors) about the second action requested by this document. ACTION 1: IANA will update … IANA has a question for the IESG (as well as the authors) about the second action requested by this document. ACTION 1: IANA will update the following ifType registrations at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers to refer to this document: OLD: 263 g9981 G.998.1 bonded interface [Beili][draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] 264 g9982 G.998.2 bonded interface [Beili][draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] 265 g9983 G.998.3 bonded interface [Beili][draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] NEW: 263 g9981 G.998.1 bonded interface [RFC-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] 264 g9982 G.998.2 bonded interface [RFC-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] 265 g9983 G.998.3 bonded interface [RFC-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib] ACTION 2: QUESTION: The IANA Considerations section says, "An object identifier for gBondMIB MODULE-IDENTITY SHALL be allocated by IANA in the MIB-2 transmission sub-tree, before this document is published." We are under the impression, however, that when values under "iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.transmission (1.3.6.1.2.1.10)" are requested, the name and number value must correspond to an ifType with the same name and number value. Section 3.12 of RFC 1213 seems to confirm this. Are we allowed to assign 263 to "gBondMIB" (with "MODULE IDENTITY" as the description)? Or would we in fact have to assign three transmission numbers for ifTypes 263, 264, and 265, with matching names, as referred to above in ACTION 1? You can review the registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers |
2012-02-16
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Miguel Garcia |
2012-02-16
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Miguel Garcia |
2012-02-14
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2012-02-14
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (xDSL multi-pair bonding (G.Bond) MIB) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the ADSL MIB WG (adslmib) to consider the following document: - 'xDSL multi-pair bonding (G.Bond) MIB' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-28. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines Management Information Base (MIB) module for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. This document proposes an extension to the Interfaces Group MIB with a set of common objects for managing multi-pair bonded Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) interfaces, defined in ITU-T recommendations G.998.1, G.998.2 and G.998.3. The MIB modules specific to each bonding technology are defined in GBOND-ATM-MIB, GBOND-ETH-MIB and GBOND-TDIM-MIB respectively. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-02-14
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested |
2012-02-14
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2012-02-14
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2012-02-14
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2012-02-14
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2012-02-14
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call text changed |
2012-02-13
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-09.txt |
2012-02-01
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2012-02-01
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-08.txt |
2011-10-26
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation. |
2011-10-10
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-09-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair. Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Menachem Dodge, Adslmib 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. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Yes. The document has been reviewed by the the WG chair and the co-editors. Comments that were raised have been taken into account. The document has not been reviewed by non-WG members. Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Only a small number of individuals in the WG participated in reviewing and commenting on the document. (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? No. (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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. There are no specific concerns and there is no IPR disclosure related to the document. (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? There has been very little feedback from WG members. On the whole, the WG has been silent. (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? Yes, this document satisfies ID nits. MIB doctor review has not yet taken place. (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? No. If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? No. If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes. This document requests that: 1. Three new values of IANAifType: g9981, g9982 and g9983 be defined in the IANAifType-MIB module. 2. An object identifier for gBondMIB be allocated by IANA [1] in the MIB-2 transmission sub-tree. If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? 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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. 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? MIB Doctor Review is required. (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. (1.k) Technical Summary This document proposes an extension to the Interfaces Group MIB with a set of common objects for managing multi-pair bonded Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) interfaces, defined in ITU-T recommendations G.998.1, G.998.2 and G.998.3. The MIB modules specific to each bonding technology are defined in GBOND-ATM-MIB, GBOND-ETH-MIB and GBOND-TDIM-MIB respectively. Working Group Summary The WG process was smooth with no real controversies. Document Quality No information is available about implementations. |
2011-09-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-09-26
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Menachem Dodge (Menachem.Dodge@ecitele.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2011-05-26
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-07.txt |
2011-03-14
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-06.txt |
2010-11-27
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-05.txt |
2010-05-28
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-04.txt |
2009-11-21
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2009-05-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-03.txt |
2008-09-01
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-02.txt |
2007-11-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-01.txt |
2007-02-26
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt |