Skip to main content

Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Allison Mankin
2004-03-23
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-03-22
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-03-22
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-03-22
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-03-20
06 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman
2004-03-20
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Allison Mankin
2004-03-19
06 Margaret Cullen State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Margaret Wasserman
2004-03-19
06 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen
2004-02-20
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06.txt
2003-12-04
06 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-12-04 by Amy Vezza
2003-12-04
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2003-12-04
06 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
No further objection; I think Steve's point should be addressed (privacy implications). And Allison's review points out a generic issue (not about this …
[Ballot comment]
No further objection; I think Steve's point should be addressed (privacy implications). And Allison's review points out a generic issue (not about this document, but about review).
2003-12-04
06 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Thomas Narten
2003-12-04
06 Bert Wijnen [Ballot discuss]
Discussing some issues with authors and MIB doctors
2003-12-04
06 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for  by Bert Wijnen
2003-12-04
06 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for  by Bill Fenner
2003-12-04
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Jon Peterson
2003-12-04
06 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Alex Zinin
2003-12-03
06 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot comment]
No further objection; I think Steve's point should be addressed (privacy implications).
2003-12-03
06 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Harald Alvestrand
2003-12-03
06 Allison Mankin
[Ballot discuss]
Despite several efforts to get TCP review from the TSVWG, we failed :( and there
are a few places where we needed to.  …
[Ballot discuss]
Despite several efforts to get TCP review from the TSVWG, we failed :( and there
are a few places where we needed to.  I hope objects can be modernized now.



tcpRtoAlgorithm OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX      INTEGER {
                    other(1),    -- none of the following
                    constant(2), -- a constant rto
                    rsre(3),    -- MIL-STD-1778, Appendix B
                    vanj(4)      -- Van Jacobson's algorithm [VANJ]

  Update with (5) --RFC 2988

Replace tcpRtoMin Description

Old:


    DESCRIPTION
          "The minimum value permitted by a TCP implementation for the
            retransmission timeout, measured in milliseconds.  More
            refined semantics for objects of this type depend upon the
            algorithm used to determine the retransmission timeout.  In
            particular, when the timeout algorithm is rsre(3), an
            object of this type has the semantics of the LBOUND
            quantity described in RFC 793."


New  "The minimum value permitted by a TCP implementation for the
            retransmission timeout, measured in milliseconds.  More refined
            semantics for objects of this type depend upon the algorithm used
            to determine the retransmission timeout; in particular, the IETF standard
            algorithm rfc2988[5] provides a minimum value."


tcpRtoMax Description Replace with

New  "The maximum value permitted by a TCP implementation for the
            retransmission timeout, measured in milliseconds.  More refined
            semantics for objects of this type depend upon the algorithm used
            to determine the retransmission timeout; in particular, the IETF standard
            algorithm rfc2988[5] provides an upper bound (as part of an adaptive
            backoff algorithm).

I'll second SMB's comment about privacy - in the Security Considerations section
about the connection table allowing a lot of access to information about active
connection, add a note of concern about privacy to the considerations about attack
that are already there.
2003-12-03
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Discuss from Abstain by Allison Mankin
2003-12-03
06 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for  by Allison Mankin
2003-12-03
06 Steven Bellovin [Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations should also note that the connection table has privacy implications.
2003-12-03
06 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Steve Bellovin
2003-12-02
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Ted Hardie
2003-12-02
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Russ Housley
2003-12-01
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Please review the -05 version, which has already been submitted but hasn't shown up in the tracker yet.' has been cleared by Margaret Wasserman
2003-12-01
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-05.txt
2003-11-26
06 Thomas Narten State Changes to IESG Evaluation from In Last Call by Thomas Narten
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Please review the -05 version, which has already been submitted but hasn''t shown up in the tracker yet.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-12-04 by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-25
06 Ned Freed [Ballot comment]
Nits:

2001 copyright date
No IPR boilerplate
2003-11-25
06 Ned Freed [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for  by Ned Freed
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Wait on other MIB updates and TCs from Juergen and Shawn.' has been cleared by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen Created "Approve" ballot
2003-11-25
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Wait on other MIB updates and TCs from Juergen and Shawn.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2003-11-04
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2003-11-04
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from In Last Call by Amy Vezza
2003-10-31
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2003-10-30
06 Margaret Cullen State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Margaret Wasserman
2003-10-30
06 Margaret Cullen Last Call was requested by Margaret Wasserman
2003-10-30
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2003-10-30
06 (System) Last call text was added
2003-10-30
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2003-10-30
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Waiting for WG chair write-up and information from Bert and Juergen regarding status of IP Address TC.' has been cleared by Margaret Wasserman
2003-10-30
06 Margaret Cullen

Chair write-up:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
  they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward …

Chair write-up:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
  they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
  for publication?

I have reviewed this MIB as both a chair and as a contributing author.
I feel that it is ready for advancement to the IESG.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
  key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by several MIB-aware members of
the IPv6 WG.  In addition, multiple reviews from management experts
on the ipv6mib mailing list have been done.

No concerns on the reviews.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
  particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
  complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
 
No concerns.

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
  you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
  perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
  or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
  time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
  indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.
 
No concerns.

5) 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?

My perception is that there is strong support from the small number
of people in the working group who are MIB-literate.  I have asked
others for their opinion and most state they trust those members
who are MIB-literate.

There is a strong consensus on the ipv6mib mailing list which has
strong representation from the management area.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.
 
No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
  ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
  announcement includes a writeup section with 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 used for implementations
    of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in an IP version
    independent manner. This memo obsoletes RFCs 2012 and 2452.

    It accomplishes this by utilizing the InetAddress TC to provide
    IP address-independence on the management objects.  This allows
    a single MIB to provide the same level of management for IPv4
    and IPv6.

  - Working Group Summary

    There was strong WG consensus for this document in both the IPv6
    working group and the IPv6 MIB design team.

  - Protocol Quality

    This document has undergone significant review by management
    experts.  In particular, Kristine Adamson has raised several
    important points from an implementation point of view.
2003-10-23
06 Margaret Cullen [Note]: 'Waiting for WG chair write-up and information from Bert and Juergen regarding status of IP Address TC.' added by Margaret Wasserman
2003-10-23
06 Margaret Cullen State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Margaret Wasserman
2003-10-22
06 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova
2003-09-15
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-04.txt
2003-06-26
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-03.txt
2003-02-28
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-02.txt
2002-11-08
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-01.txt
2002-07-02
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-00.txt