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.