Fibre Channel Fabric Configuration Server MIB
draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02

[Ballot comment]
This (in the Introduction) is pointless commentary:

  This memo includes boilerplate which uses only one of the following
  terms, but is nevertheless required to mention all of the keywords in
  the following statement:

IANA Additional Comment:

IANA Question was answered.


So, it would be entirely appropriate if you also chose to assign this
MIB under the mib-2 subtree, and assigned the next number in the
series. For example, if you chose to assign:

156 t11FcFabricConfigServerMIB T11-FC-FABRIC-CONFIG-SERVER-MIB [RFC--ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02.txt]

IANA Last Call Comments:

** IANA would like you request for supplying clearer
name and description**

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT
PARAMETERS" registry  located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
sub-registry "ifType definitions"

Value Name Description Reference
TDB Fct11FcFabricConfigServer ???? [RFC-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02]


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

PROTO Write-up

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

David L. Black (imss WG Chair)

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, but an RFC Editor Note should be used to make two changes to
text in Section 1 that is not appropriate for a Proposed Standard RFC:

(A) Make the following change:
OLD
This memo was previously approved by T11.5 (http://www.t11.org); it
is currently a work item of the IETF's IMSS working group.
NEW
This memo was previously approved by T11.5 (http://www.t11.org), and
has been further developed in the IETF's IMSS working group.

(B) Remove the following paragraph, leaving the RFC 2119 statement that
occurs immediately after it:
-----
This memo includes boilerplate which uses only one of the following
terms, but is nevertheless required to mention all of the keywords in
the following statement:
-----

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members?

Yes. This document has been reviewed by Fibre Channel experts in
Technical Committee T11 (Fibre Channel standards organization)
in addition to members of the IMSS WG, and the IMSS WG's MIB expert.

Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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?

An OPS Area MIB Doctor review was performed during WG Last Call. There
does not appear to be a need for additional external reviews.

(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.

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?

It's hard to distinguish the two cases due to somewhat thin WG membership.
There is solid support for this document both in the WG and from T11.

(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.

Yes. The idnits checker (1.124) finds a couple of "non-RFC3330-compliant
IPv4 addresses" - this is not an actual problem because these strings are
actually section references into other standards, e.g., "ANSI INCITS
427-2006, Fibre Channel - Generic Services 5, FC-GS-5, section 6.2.3.4".

Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes, a MIB Doctor review occurred during WG Last Call, and the MIB
Doctor (Bert Wijnen) is satisfied with this draft.

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

Yes.

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?

No, but there is an informative reference to an Internet-Draft:

[SCSI-MIB]
Hallak-Stamler, M., Bakke, M., Lederman, Y., Krueger, M., and K.
McCloghrie, "Definition of Managed Objects for SCSI Entities",
Internet-Draft (draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-nn.txt), work-in-progress.

The SCSI-MIB has been published as RFC 4455

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].

No.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes, and the draft contains an explicit instruction to the RFC Editor
on where to insert the IANA assigned MIB number from the mib-2 subtree.

If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations
requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA
registries clearly identified?

N/A.

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].

N/A.

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?

N/A.

(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, the Document Shepherd has relied on MIB Doctor review for the MIB
checks.

(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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes managed objects for information related
to the Fabric Configuration Server function of a Fibre Channel
network.

Working Group Summary

This document was reviewed in the IMSS WG and in Technical Committee
T11 (the official Fibre Channel standards body). T11 voted to
recommend a prior version of this document to the IETF.

Document Quality

The protocol has been reviewed for the IMSS WG by Keith McCloghrie.

The protocol has been reviewed for the IESG by David L. Black (imss WG Chair).

The MIB Doctor Review was performed by Bert Wijnen resulting in a
simplification of the table structure in one area of the MIB, and
correction of a large number of SMI syntax and documentation issues.
The WG agreed with the proposed table structure simplification,
and the current version of the draft reflects that simplification.

Personnel
Document Shepherd: David L. Black
Responsible Area Director: Dan Romascanu