Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) MIB
draft-ietf-forces-mib-10

[Ballot comment]
To me it seems this MIB modules fails to instrument any aspect of the protocol that would tell an administrator that there is an overload situation. Maybe for a future MIB.

[Ballot comment]
This document underwent MIB Doctors reviews from John Flick and Bert Wijnen. It would be nice to mention them in the Protocol Quality section of the announcement together with the other reviews and to acknowledge the contribution of the two MIB Doctors in the document (right now only John is mentioned).

[Ballot comment]
This document underwent MIB Doctors reviews from John Flick and Bert Wijnen. It would be nice to mention them in the Protocol Quality section of the announcement together with the other reviews and to acknowledge the contribution of the two MIB Doctors in the document.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Network Management Parameters" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
sub-registry "iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"

Decimal Name Description References
------- ---- ----------- ----------
[tbd] forcesMIB Forwarding and Control Element MIB [RFC-forces-mib-07]

I put this into "Waiting for Ad Go-Ahead" because it is waiting for the ForCES Protocol Specification, which in turn is waiting for ForCES Forwarding Element Model. I expect that these three will be progressed together.

PROTO Write-up by Patrick Droz:


  (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?


Patrick Droz (co-chair ForCES). Yes, the version is ready to go.


  (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?


yes, there were several reviews of 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, the document is ready.


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


no, this document was produced very smoothly. There were some
discussions on the mailing list but no conflicts.


  (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. Nobody objected to this 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 will
          be entered into the ID Tracker.)


no


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd 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.


yes


  (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. There is a reference to the ForCES
protocol draft (draft-ietf-forces-protocol-08.txt) which is currently
with the IESG. But protocol draft itself has a reference to the
model draft which is delayed. It is expected that the model and
protocol draft have to be published at the same time.


  (1.i)  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 Management Information Base (MIB) module for use
  with network management protocols in the Internet community.  In
  particular, it defines managed objects for the Forwarding and Control
  Element Separation (ForCES) Network Element (NE).  The ForCES working
  group is defining a protocol to allow a Control Element (CE) to
  control the behavior of a Forwarding Element (FE).


          Working Group Summary


            There was consensus to have a MIB draft. The only
            discussions were around what to put in the MIB.
            But there were no fights but rather contributions.



          Document Quality
            There are at least 4 different implementations of the
            ForCES protocol. One university indicated that they are
            also working on the implementation of the MIB. Currently
            there are no products announced that will use ForCES.