L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB
draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-16

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8502, changed abstract to '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 two MIB modules that will be used by other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-12-21, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup and the document phrase the intended status as
"Standards Track", though the datatracker entry of "Proposed Standard"
seems to be trustworthy.  The shepherd writeup also lists the responsible
AD as Alvaro, but the datatracker lists Martin.

A general comment that we've been making on lots of documents in this
space is that it would be nice to be in a place where the acronym "VPN"
implies transport encryption.  It's unclear that it's appropriate to request
changes to this specific document toward that end, though.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry
of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

two new MIBs will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: l2L3VpnMcastTCMIB
Description: L2L3-VPN-Multicast-TC-MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: l2L3VpnMcastMIB
Description: L2L3-VPN-Multicast-MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-09-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib@ietf.org, mach.chen@huawei.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, Mach Chen , bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB'
  as 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 2018-09-03. 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes two MIB modules which will be used by
  other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer
  3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

  Standards Track.

(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

  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 two MIB modules which will be used by
  other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer
  3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.

Working Group Summary

  There is good consensus from the WG, and there is no controversy.

Document Quality
 
  There was active discussion in the WG, it passed the MIB Doctor
  and experts review, many valuable comments received and
  addressed. A number of iterations reflecting that.

Personnel
  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the draft and raised some 
  comments that have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publication.


(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.

  No.

(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 WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No.

(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.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  None.

(9) 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 is good consensus from the WG.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Glenn Mansfield Keeni is assigned as the MIB Doctor, he gave a
  lot of review comments that have been addressed in version 13.

(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.

(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 WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(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 IANA section is well written, all IANA requests are clearly identified.

(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.

  No additional IANA registries are requested.
 
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
  The MIBs defined in this document passed the MIB validation check through:
  https://www.simpleweb.org/ietf/mibs/validate/