Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-12-31
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot.shepherd@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-07-20
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2015-07-15
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | The history of this draft goes back to a commitment made to the OPS AD (Benoit Claise) about documenting how MANETs are managed. For one … The history of this draft goes back to a commitment made to the OPS AD (Benoit Claise) about documenting how MANETs are managed. For one reason or another, the WG produced this draft, specific to OLSRv2. It is clear that the draft was written to satisfy the commitment. In talking to the OPS AD about it, we agree that the content is too constrained, and that it doesn’t address what his original expectations were: a wider more comprehensive look at MANETs in a protocol agnostic fashion, addressing general scenarios and identifying not just current solutions, but potential gaps as well. Because of that, we have decided not to move this document forward. |
2015-07-15
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Dead from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-07-02
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-06-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2015-06-19
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2015-06-12
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-06-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2015-06-05
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2015-06-04
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2015-06-04
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2015-06-03
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-03
|
03 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management' as Informational RFC 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-12. 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 how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP). Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one single configuration parameter (called "C"). Other parameters for tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of the network, and need not be the same in all routers. This, using MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or possibly other, less "chatty", protocols). In addition, for debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters, as well as notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network Management System (NMS) via standardized management protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-06-25 |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-05-29
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-05-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-03-25
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this … Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03 (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? Publication as Informational is requested. This is indicated in the title page header. From the document abstract This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP). This is informational, and the document defines no new protocol, or even how a protocol should be used, but how these protocols are typically used. (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 how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP). Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one single configuration parameter (called "C"). Other parameters for tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of the network, and need not be the same in all routers. This, using MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or possibly other, less "chatty", protocols). In addition, for debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters, as well as notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network Management System (NMS) via standardized management protocols. That is the document abstract. In the document shepherd's words MANETs, in particular those using OLSRv2, are, by design, networks intended to operate with a maximum degree of autonomy in a possibly highly dynamic environment. However they still need some management. There is no "one size fits all" approach to managing a MANET, but a typical (consistent with reports from various participants) approach to managing an OLSRv2-routed MANET is described. The document is entirely informative, no suggestion is made as to any requirement to follow this practice. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? WG acceptance of the document was strong. Comment since then and during the WGLC has however been mostly absent, but the document was substantially in its current state at WG acceptance. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document does not specify a protocol. There are several OLSRv2 implementations, as well as implementations of the MIB modules for OLSRv2 and NHDP. In addition, there are other, proprietary, management interfaces for managing OLSRv2 (e.g., one via a JSON representation). There have been good discussions of the document among the WG participants, in general (reflected in the acknowledgements section). There have been no specific MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The Document Shepherd is Christopher Dearlove. The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel. (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. The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request. The document shepherd believes that this version of the document (-03, the WGLC-ed version being -02) is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews of this document up to WG acceptance. Reviews after that point have been limited, but no major changes have been made in that time. (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 does not need reviews beyond those normally done during AD and IESG processing. (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. The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document. (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? Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring disclosure. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document. (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? The WG consensus behind this document appears solid, although not vocal since WG acceptance of the document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 appeals have been threatened. No extreme discontent has been indicated. (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. The document shepherd found some nits (typographic, minor editorial) in the WGLC-ed -02 version, which have been rectified in the -03 version. IDNIT returns no errors and no warnings. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not require any of these reviews. MIBs are within the subject matter, but this is not a MIB specification, so MIB expertise would be welcome but not essential. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have been identified as informative. (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? There are no normative references in the document. (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. There are no normative references in the document. (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. This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. The document has no actions for IANA (as indicated in the IANA section, which is to be removed by the RFC editor). Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. The document has no actions for IANA. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. The document has no actions for IANA. 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 5226). The document has no actions for IANA. (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. The document has no actions for IANA. (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, etc. No formal language is contained in the document. |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, manet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot.shepherd@ietf.org |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-03-04
|
03 | Justin Dean | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-12-22
|
03 | Ulrich Herberg | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-15
|
03 | Ulrich Herberg | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03.txt |
2014-08-19
|
02 | Ulrich Herberg | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-08-19
|
02 | Ulrich Herberg | Document shepherd changed to Christopher Dearlove |
2014-08-13
|
02 | Ulrich Herberg | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-07
|
02 | Ulrich Herberg | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-02.txt |
2014-07-29
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-07-29
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | This document now replaces draft-clausen-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot instead of None |
2014-07-21
|
01 | Ulrich Herberg | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-07-04
|
01 | Thomas Clausen | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-01.txt |
2014-04-14
|
00 | Ulrich Herberg | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-00.txt |