Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding MIB for IEEE 802.11
draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06

[Ballot discuss]
An RFC editor note was added for the Abstract and Introduciton of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib to explain the context of publiscaiton as Informational. It was agreed to add a similar note to this I-D.

Please do.

IANA comments:

QUESTION: What should we use in the "name" field for the two ifType assignments?

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will assign the following
ifType numbers at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers


Decimal Name Description Reference
------- | ------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------
TDB1 | ??? | WTP Virtual Radio Interface | [RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib-05]
TDB2 | ??? | WLAN Profile Interface | [RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib-05]


Action #2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will assign the following
mib-2 numbers at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

Decimal Name Description Reference
------- | ------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------
TDB3 | capwapDot11MIB | Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points |
[RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib-05]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

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

Margaret Wasserman.

Yes, I have reviewed these documents, and I believe that they are
ready for publication as Informational RFCs.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Originally these documents were intended for publication as a Proposed
Standard, and I don't believe that the documents have been well-enough
reviewed by implementers of the CAPWAP protocols for that status.
I do believe that they have been adequately reviewed for Informational
status.

  (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?

Not for Informational status.

  (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.

  (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 are a small number of people who were ever interested enough in
this document to read it.  I believe that those people have solid
consensus that it is ready to publish as Informational.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

I believe that it meets all nits and has been properly reviewed by
the MIB doctors.  I have not personally run it through any MIB
tools.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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?  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].

Yes, the references are split and look correctly categorized to me.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

Yes, the IANA section is present and appears to be correct.  There
is no expert review specified, as this document only allocates
values from established registries.

  (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?

I did not run a MIB checker on this document, but the MIB format
appears to be correct.

  (1.k)  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
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

This document defines managed objects for modeling the Control and
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

There was not enough working group involvement with this document to
warrant publication as a Proposed Standard.  This was disappointing,
as we did have a charter item to publish a standards-track MIB.  The
document is complete, though, and there is no disagreement about
publishing it as Informational.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

There is at least one implementation of this protocol underway.

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

Margaret Wasserman is the document shepherd for this document.  Dan
Romascanu is the responsible AD.