[Ballot comment]
Word-wrapping makes some of the tables difficult to read. The editors
  might want to think about a different way to present this information.


Section 5., paragraph 23:
>    dot3MpcpSyncTime OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX  Unsigned32
>        UNITS      "TQ (16nsec)"
>        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>        STATUS  current
>        DESCRIPTION
>                "An object that reports the 'sync lock time' of the
>                OLT receiver in increments of Time Quanta (TQ)-16ns
>                as defined in [802.3ah] 60,64,65. The value returned
>                shall be (sync lock time ns)/16. If this value exceeds
>                (2^32-1) the value (2^32-1) shall be returned.
>                This object is applicable for an OLT, with the same
>                value for all virtual interfaces, and for an ONU."
>        REFERENCE  "[802.3ah], 64.3.3.2."
>      ::= { dot3MpcpControlEntry 4 }

  If the value can exceed what can be represented in 32 bits, wouldn't a
  64-bit value make sense, both here and for objects below that are
  similarly capped? (I'm no expert in this technology, so there may well
  be a good reason for why this choice was made.)


Section 8., paragraph 17:
>    SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
>    Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),

  Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/

[Ballot comment]
Nit:

The document says:


  The Optical Line Terminal (OLT) is the server unit of the network,
  located at the Central Office (CO).

  The Optical Network Unit (ONU) is the client unit of the network,
  located at the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).

This is a non-blocking comment, but I do wish to note that I find the
"located in" clauses above somewhat strange.  If the services which
make a CO are required by the OLT in some way, the document doesn't
note it in a way that was findable by me; similarly, that operation
of this doesn't seem to require that ONU be in CPE--presumably it
can be anywhere the ONU functaionality is needed.  The other
diagrams and descriptions of functionality seem fairly general.

The WG chair and PROTO shepherd asked for the document to be submitted to IESG approval.

Revised PROTO write-up:

---------

Dan (and HUBMIB WG members).

This document is now ready to go onto the IESG agenda for consideration as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Thanks to Lior for the latest revision(s) which have addressed all the IETF Last Call comments and other comments that came in as well.

Bert

------- PROTO SHEPEHRD writeup:


  (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?

yes

  (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?

Document did have WG review (Dan Romascanu, CM Heard, Matt Squire, Edward Beili and Bert Wijnen), MIB doctor review (David Perkins), IETF Last Call review. These resulted in a few new revisions.
IEEE 802.3 WG (specificall 802.3ah) has also reviewed and commented during the development of this document.
Document is in good shape now and has had enough review.

  (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.

There was/is some concern about quality of English. However, a call for volunteers to do a check on that has not resulted in a reviewer for that specific aspect. The author did do another pass, and it improved to a level that AD and WG chair find good enough.
We assume the RFC-Editor will correct any remaining serious issues.

  (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?

The WG is does not have too many active participants, but there is consensus and support from the active participants.

  (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?

Nov 21st, 2006: idnits 1.118

tmp/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-06.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
   
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

    the boilerplate looks good.

    No nits found.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

  Experimental warnings:
    None.

    No nits found.

MIB doctor review was done by David Perkins.

  (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].

I see that [RFC2119] is listed under informative references.
It should be moved to the normative references section.

I also see that (now that rfc3636bis document has been approved by IESG), we might remove citation/refrence to rfc3636 itsels altogether and just cite/reference the new-rfc3636bis-to-be.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration 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 suggested a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

yes

  (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)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

    This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
    (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP based
    Internets.  In particular, it defines objects for managing interfaces
    that conform to the Ethernet Passive Optical Networks (EPON) standard
    as defined in the IEEE Std 802.3ah-2004, which are extended
    capabilities to the Ethernet like interfaces.

  Working Group Summary
    The working Group has consensus to publish this document as a
    Proposed Standard RFC.

  Document Quality
    The document has been reviewed by various WG members (and chairs)
    of the HUBMIB WG. IEEE802.3ah did various reviews and comments
    throughout the development of this document.
    MIB Doctor review was done by David Perkins.
    IETF Last Call also resulted in some comments.
    All review comments have been addressed.
    We are not aware of any current implementations.

  Personnel
    Bert Wijnen (WG chair of hubmib) is the PROTO SHEPHERD.
    Dan ROmascanu is the Responsible Area Director.

  Possible notes to RFC-Editor

    Page 99, pls move reference

      [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    from the informative to the normative section.


    Possibly replace all citations/references to rfc3636 and replace them
    with the new rfc3636bis-to-be (which has been approved by IESG already,
    and which obsoletes RFC3636).

Bert Wijnen
HUBMIB WG chair

IANA Last call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a single mib-2
number for DOT2-EPON-MIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at the following location:

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

The IANA understands this is the only IANA Action required for this document.

GenART review by Gonzallo Camarillo

Draft: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-05.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Review Date: 26 October 2006 IETF LC Date: 19 October 2006


Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.


Comments:

Acronyms should also be expanded in the title of the draft.

Generally, abstracts should not have references so that they could be distributed independently of the main document. The author may want to consider removing all references from the abstract.

Mmm...

I should have updated the status to AD-Review substate
External-Party  (namely MIB Doctor Review).

It actually went into MIB Doctor Review on Aug 24, and it toke
somehwat (quite a bit) longer than normal.