Skip to main content

Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-10-04
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-10-03
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-10-03
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the MIB - Remote Network Monitoring registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

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

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Descriptor: iptfs
OID Type: OID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Descriptor: ipsec
OID Type: OID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

If this is incorrect, please let us know

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2022-10-03
04 Brian Trammell Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Trammell. Sent review to list.
2022-09-26
04 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell
2022-09-26
04 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell
2022-09-26
04 Magnus Westerlund Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Jana Iyengar was marked no-response
2022-09-24
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ivaylo Petrov
2022-09-24
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ivaylo Petrov
2022-09-23
04 Alexey Melnikov Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Alexey Melnikov was rejected
2022-09-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2022-09-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2022-09-21
04 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Review has been revised by Joel Halpern.
2022-09-21
04 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2022-09-21
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2022-09-21
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2022-09-21
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2022-09-21
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell
2022-09-21
04 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar
2022-09-21
04 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Jana Iyengar
2022-09-20
04 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-09-20
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'Definitions of
Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes managed objects for the management of IP
  Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document
  provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG
  module for the same purpose.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc3410: Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))



2022-09-20
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-09-20
04 Roman Danyliw Last call was requested
2022-09-20
04 Roman Danyliw Last call announcement was generated
2022-09-20
04 Roman Danyliw Ballot approval text was generated
2022-09-20
04 Roman Danyliw Ballot writeup was generated
2022-09-20
04 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-09-20
04 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed)
2022-09-20
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-09-20
04 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04.txt
2022-09-20
04 Don Fedyk New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2022-09-20
04 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2022-07-21
03 Roman Danyliw AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/2D3QqVA0bdeT7jX5U6HNKKE-JD4/
2022-07-21
03 (System) Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Don Fedyk, Eric Kinzie (IESG state changed)
2022-07-21
03 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2022-03-24
03 Tero Kivinen
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Proposed Standard.

(2) 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 document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Roman Danyliw.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) 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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No IANA actions needed.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.
2022-03-23
03 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2021-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Proposed Standard.

(2) 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 document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) 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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No IANA actions needed.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.
2021-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2021-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-11-18
03 Tero Kivinen IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-11-18
03 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-03.txt
2021-11-18
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2021-11-18
03 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-16
02 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-02.txt
2021-11-16
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2021-11-16
02 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-12
01 Tero Kivinen
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Proposed Standard.

(2) 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 document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) 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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No IANA actions needed.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.
2021-11-11
01 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-01.txt
2021-11-11
01 (System) New version approved
2021-11-11
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk , Eric Kinzie
2021-11-11
01 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-08
00 Tero Kivinen Notification list changed to kivinen@iki.fi because the document shepherd was set
2021-11-08
00 Tero Kivinen Document shepherd changed to Tero Kivinen
2021-11-05
00 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-11-05
00 Tero Kivinen Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-11-05
00 Tero Kivinen Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-08-16
00 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-07-26
00 Tero Kivinen Added to session: IETF-111: ipsecme  Mon-1430
2021-05-21
00 Yoav Nir This document now replaces draft-fedyk-ipsecme-mib-iptfs instead of None
2021-05-21
00 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-00.txt
2021-05-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-05-21
00 Don Fedyk Set submitter to "Don Fedyk ", replaces to draft-fedyk-ipsecme-mib-iptfs and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org
2021-05-21
00 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision