Diameter Base Protocol MIB
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from dime-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-04-17
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2012-04-16
|
06 | Benoît Claise | Folks, As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no energy to get both MIB documents draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib completed. Unless someone … Folks, As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no energy to get both MIB documents draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib completed. Unless someone steps ahead now by 8th April and really manages to progress these documents in few weeks time, we will abandon both and remove them from Dime charter's milestones.. - Jouni & Lionel |
2012-04-16
|
06 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Dead from Dead::Revised ID Needed |
2012-04-16
|
06 | Benoît Claise | Folks, As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no energy to get both MIB documents draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib completed. Unless someone … Folks, As discussed in Dime WG meeting in Paris there seems to be no energy to get both MIB documents draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib completed. Unless someone steps ahead now by 8th April and really manages to progress these documents in few weeks time, we will abandon both and remove them from Dime charter's milestones.. - Jouni & Lionel |
2012-04-16
|
06 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Dead::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-29
|
06 | Benoît Claise | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise from Dan Romascanu |
2011-08-03
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-08-03
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-08-03
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-08-03
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-06-14
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Submitted a long ago, actually. |
2011-06-14
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2011-06-13
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2011-06-13
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-06.txt |
2011-05-23
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-05-04
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2011-05-04
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-05.txt |
2010-02-02
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Dan Romascanu |
2010-02-02
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-19
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-04.txt |
2009-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | (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 … (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? The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo (vf0213@gmail.com). I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (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? This document defines the MIB module for the Diameter base protocol. It contains the minimum set of objects needed to manage a Diameter entity. These definitions are based on an implementation of Diameter and therefore gone through a good level of sanity checks. It has also been reviewed by members of the WG. The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (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? There are no concerns with this document. (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. There are no concerns with this 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 is consensus in the WG behind the document. The document is an essential/required part of the Diameter base protocol deployment and so the problem space address by the doc is well understood. (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.) There is no opposition to this document. (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. The document does not contain nits. (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]. The document has been split into normative and informative references. There are no normative references that are work in progress or downward references. (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? The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with the body. The document only request allocations of new OID under MIB-2. (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? The document contains MIB definitions. They have been validated and all definitions follow mib-2 syntax. (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 The document specifies the minimum required set of MIB objects necessary to manage a Diameter node using SNMP. The document specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In particular it describes the MIB objects used for managing the Diameter base protocol (RFC3588). Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by members of the DIME WG for its sanity in terms of the tunable objects and variables necessary for managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed by external folks who have vested interest in having a MIB module standardized. Additionally, the document has been passed through automated MIB checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and structure. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. |
2009-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Victor Fajardo (vfajardo@research.telcordia.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-11-09
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-03.txt |
2009-07-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-02.txt |
2009-07-01
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-01.txt |
2009-05-23
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00.txt |