Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-07

[Ballot comment]
I'll wait for the response to Stephen's question as I also noticed the boilerplate wasn't used (SecDir review did too, kinda).

I do appreciate the descriptions provided for the threats associated with the read/write read/create objects.  Thanks for that.

[Ballot comment]

- My review is based on the diff at [1]

- The security considerations section doesn't seem to
reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not
making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and
I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update
their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't
think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB
without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG
should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be
done here.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6779&url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06
  [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security

[Ballot comment]
The introduction in section 1 needs to mention this message: This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466.

Thanks for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06#section-1.1

The MIB doctor review was done by Mike MacFaden.
And the rfcdiff between RFC6779 and this document looks about right.

Finally, keeping https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html in consideration, I believe this work is clearly justified as it updates an existing MIB module.

(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?


    The intended status is “Proposed Standard”. The title page header indicates Standards Track.
    As this document replaces and obsoletes RFC6779, which is a Proposed Standard, this is the
    appropriate status for the document.


(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 revises, extends, and replaces RFC 6779, which defined
  the NHDP (RFC 6130) related portion of the Management Information Base
  (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.

  This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466.


Working Group Summary:

  The updates made to RFC 6130 were, initially, described in draft-dearlove-manet-nhdp-optimization,
  which became draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization  and then RFC 7466. On advice from the RTG AD,
  rather than have that draft/RFC attempt to update RF6779, it was decided to issue an RFC6779bis, this
  document.


  While there were some discussions in the WG process regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization,
  the resulting changes to the NHDP-MIB did not give rise to any “roughness”.


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?


    There is reported to be at least one implementation of NHDP-MIB that has been updated according to
    this specification.

    A MIB doctor review was undertaken of the draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib prior to publication as RFC6779,
    and further MIB doctor review of this draft has been provided, first on version -03, and then on version
    -05, confirming that all required changes have been made.

    This document has been reviewed by GEN-ART. All suggested changes have been made in this version
    of this document.

    This document has been reviewed by SEC-DIR, too late to be included in this version. However only one
    comment has been made, described as “a detail”. The document shepherd’s view is that this should not
    delay this document. (His personal view is that the proposed minor change is better not made, but even
    taking a contrary view, this is too minor to cause a delay, and can be handled at a later stage if needed.)



Personnel:


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?


    The document shepherd is:

          Christopher Dearlove


    The responsible Area Director is:

          Alvaro Retana


(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 the document, in particular the rfcdiff to RFC6779, and finds that
    the updates reflect that which is necessitated by RFC 7466.

    The document shepherd made some observations about earlier drafts that have been resolved.



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

    The document shepherd is satisfied that suitable reviews, and in sufficient detail, have been performed.


(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.

    The document shepherd believes that no additional reviews are required or beneficial. (Of the indicated examples, a security review has been provided.)


(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 believes that there are no such concerns.


(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?


    It is hard to get excited about an update to a MIB module, and there has not been much discussion in
    the WG on the topic of this MIB module in particular. However, as this update is imposed by the
    development and publication of RFC 7466, which has seen considerable discussion in the mailing list,
    the document shepherd has no concerns with consensus behind this document.



(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.



    idnits reports a mismatch between RFC2119 text and expected text. This is due to the addition of
  "NOT RECOMMENDED"  (which the document shepherd believes is correct) and use of the form
  [RFC2119] (possibly to prevent xml2rfc warning).


    idnits also reports three references included but not referenced. However these are referenced,
    but within the MIB, not by an XML  tag.



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


    This document has had MIB Doctor, GEN-ART and SEC-DIR reviews, see above.


(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.


    There are no downrefs.



(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.


    Publication of this document will obsolete RFC6779
    This is indicated in the header, abstract and introduction - specifically, detailed in Section 1.1.



(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 5226).


    This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
    IANA registries.



(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.



    This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
    IANA registries.



(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.


    The author (Ulrich Herberg) reports that suitable automated checks have been performed.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry
of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

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

the following MIB is already registered:

Decimal: 213
Name: nhdpMIB
Description: NHDP-MIB
References: [ RFC6779 ]

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, this MIB is to be replaced by the MIB in the current document and that the reference is to be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: aretana@cisco.com, manet@ietf.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis@ietf.org, manet-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-16. 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 revises, extends, and replaces RFC 6779.  It defines a
  portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network
  management protocols in the Internet community.  In particular, it
  describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood
  Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router.  The MIB module
  defined in this document, denoted NHDP-MIB, also reports state,
  performance information, and notifications about NHDP.  This
  additional state and performance information is useful to
  troubleshoot problems and performance issues during neighbor
  discovery.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis/ballot/


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

MIB DOCTOR Review
-------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

January 18, 2012 MIB DOCTOR Review: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-03.txt

Performed by Michael R. MacFaden, VMware, Inc
According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4181

This review only covers syntax, SMIv2 rules usage of the MIB module itself, not the draft.
Some of the things mentioned below exist the prior version of the mib, not this update.

1 Boiler plate - check
2. Narative Sections - missing section describing Relationship to the IF-MIB per RFC 4181
3. Security Consideratons -  check
4. IANA Considerations - check
5. No new namespaces - check
6. References section - marginal see section below for missing normative references
7. Copyright notice - check -- next version should update year to 2016
8. Intellectual Property section -  missing


1. CHECK: SMIv2 compliant - YES
sytax check: smilint -l9 ./FLOAT-TC-MIB  ./NHDP-MIB - no errors
smicng : not run

2. CHECK:SPELLING/CAPITALIZATION:
  Using aspell --- no misspellings found. Suggestions:
    1. to define the set of *IpAddrs* related to a virtual -> IP Addresses or actual managed object.
    2. of the OCTET STRING type, the SMI's *mechanisms* for  -> mechanism
    3. of Configured Interface Address *Tuples* for each network  -> tuples

3. CHECK: RFC references validated/most current version check.
a. NHDP (RFC 6130) - The Neighborhood Discovery Protocol,
  recommend using the actual title int the comment:
  Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)

b. Reference to RFC 1213 should be revised to RFC 4293 (ipAddressTable), and add
  to Normative References.
  nhdpLibRemovedIfAddrSetEntry  OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      NhdpLibRemovedIfAddrSetEntry
      MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
        "A router's Removed Interface Address Set consists
          of Removed Interface Address Tuples, one per network
          address:

          (IR_local_iface_addr, IR_time)

          The association between these addresses and the
          router's Interface is found in the Standard MIB II's
          IP address table (RFC 1213)."
c. Remaining check of RFCs to references section in mib module:
    Normative SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB  -- RFC 3411  -- missing
    Normative Jitter Considerations in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)  -- RFC 5148 -- missing
    Normative Representing Multi-Value Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)--  RFC 5497 -- missing

    Normative SNMPv2-SMI  -- RFC 2578 -ok
    Normative SNMPv2-TC  -- RFC 2579 - ok
    Normative SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC 2580 - ok
    Normative INET-ADDRESS-MIB  -- RFC 4001 - ok
    Normative IF-MIB  -- RFC 2863 - ok
    Normative FLOAT-TC-MIB  -- RFC 6340 - ok
    Normative  Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) -- RFC 6130 - ok
    Normative  FLOAT-TC-MIB  -- RFC 6340 - ok
    Informative RFC 6779 - ok


4. CHECK: Hard to follow references found.
  nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetUpTime has generic reference to REFERNCE RFC 6130, it uses two terms:
    'nbrup' or 'nbrdown' neither is found by searching 6130.
    a. said to become '*nbrup*' if a new nhdpNibNeighborSetEntry
    b. It becomes 'nbrdown' if     

5. CHECK: Backward compatiblity - NO
  This draft updates existing mib rfc https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6779.txt
  Look for backward compability (oids/object-identities, types, semantics) remained the same.

This proposed change is not backward compatible:

Modified OID:  1.3.6.1.2.1.213.1.2.5.1.5
< NHDP-MIB    nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time                                    column      1.3.6.1.2.1.213.1.2.5.1.5
- ---
> NHDP-MIB    nhdpIib2HopSetN2Lost                                    column      1.3.6.1.2.1.213.1.2.5.1.5

Added OIDs:
> NHDP-MIB    nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time                                    column      1.3.6.1.2.1.213.1.2.5.1.6
> NHDP-MIB    nhdpFullCompliance2                                    compliance  1.3.6.1.2.1.213.2.1.3
> NHDP-MIB    nhdpStateGroup2                                        group        1.3.6.1.2.1.213.2.2.7


www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6779.txt has:
nhdpIib2Hopc/rfc6779.txt has:
nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time  OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      TimeStamp
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
        "nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time specifies the value
          of sysUptime when this entry should expire and be
          removed from the nhdpIib2HopSetTable."
      REFERENCE
        "RFC 6130 - Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood
          Discovery Protocol (NHDP), Clausen, T., Dearlove,
          C., and J. Dean, April 2011"
  ::= { nhdpIib2HopSetEntry 5 }

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-03.txt has moved to:
  nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time  OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      TimeStamp
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
        "nhdpIib2HopSetN2Time specifies the value
          of sysUptime when this entry should expire and be
          removed from the nhdpIib2HopSetTable."
      REFERENCE
        "RFC 6130 - Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood
          Discovery Protocol (NHDP), Clausen, T., Dearlove,
          C., and J. Dean, April 2011"
  ::= { nhdpIib2HopSetEntry 6 }


6. CHECK: URIs defined in MIB module exist/valid:
URIs validated: checked for valid, not-broken links:
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/manet
  http://www.herberg.name/           
  http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~rgcole/
  http://www.ianchak.com/
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info
Broken URIs:
  http://www.thomasclausen.org/"

7. CHECK: Inconsistent formatting
  nhdpNbrStateChange  NOTIFICATION-TYPE
      OBJECTS { nhdpIfName,  -- The originator of
                            --    the notification.  <<==
              nhdpNbrState  -- The new state
      }


8. CHECK: all Counters: define their discontinuity timestamp? NO
        No explicit mention of what discontinuity managed object is tied to counters:
        DiscontinuityTime is syntax: TimeStamp. Counters are:
    smidump -f tree ./FLOAT-TC-MIB  ./NHDP-MIB | grep Count
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageXmits(1)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvd(2)
    Counter64 nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSize(3)
    Counter64 nhdpIfHelloMessageRecvdAccumulatedSize(4)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageTriggeredXmits(5)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessagePeriodicXmits(6)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedSymmetricNeighborCount(7)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedHeardNeighborCount(8)
    Counter32 nhdpIfHelloMessageXmitAccumulatedLostNeighborCount(9)
    Counter32 nhdpDiscIfRecvdPackets(1)
    Counter32 nhdpDiscIfExpectedPackets(2)
    Counter32 nhdpNibNeighborSetChanges(3)
    Counter32 nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetChanges(1)
    Counter32 nhdpDiscNeighborNibNeighborSetReachableLinkChanges(3)
    Counter32 nhdpIib2HopSetPerfChanges(1)


9. CHECK: All Notifications provide means to avoid excessive transmits? YES
    There are 3: nhdpNbrStateChange, nhdp2HopNbrStateChange, nhdpIfStateChange
    and there exist nerd knobs to control transmission rate.

OBSERVATIONS:
    The compliance section does not support read only snmp agents.
 
Signed,
Mike MacFaden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAladcWsACgkQxTVOqsYmDtGCNgCgqahhMY0posWoHLGJd4rHIbj1
cs4AnjAdGrmJQ0/drbxu/PP2R3EplIv8
=Bpgv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

(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?

    The intended status is "Proposed Standard". The title page header indicates Standards Track.
    As this document replaces and obsoletes RFC6779, which is a Proposed Standard, this is the appropriate status for the document.

(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 revises, extends, and replaces RFC 6779, which defined
  the NHDP (RFC6130) related portion of the Management Information Base
  (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.

  This revision to RFC6779  is necessitated by the update to RFC6130 specified in draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization.

Working Group Summary:

  The updates made to RFC6130 were, initially, described in draft-dearlove-manet-nhdp-optimization,
  which became draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization (currently under IESG evaluation). On advice from
  the RTG AD, rather than have draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization attempt to "update RF6779", it was
  decided to issue an RFC6779bis, this document.

  While there were some discussions in the WG process regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization,
  the resulting changes to the NHDP-MIB did not give rise to any "roughness".

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?

    There is at least one implementation of NHDP-MIB that has been updated according to this specification.

    A MIB doctor review was undertaken of the draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib prior to publication as RFC6779.
    No MIB doctor review of this update has been done - but it would be reasonable to request one as part
    of the IETF Last Call process. This should not be a major undertaking,  given the relatively limited difference
    between RFC6779 and this document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    The document shepherd is:
          Christopher Dearlove

    The responsible Area Director is:
          Adrian Farrell

(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 the document, in particular the rfcdiff to RFC6779, and finds that
    the updates reflect that which is necessitated by draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization.

    The document shepherd made the following observations about draft -01:
    - This document references (including within the MIB) draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-00.
        The current version of that document is draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-03 (predating this document).
    - The document shepherd is unclear as to why only the four specified transitions (of six possible) can
        trigger the event nhdp2HopNbrStateChange.

    The document shepherd notes that all of these have been resolved in draft -03. He notes that shortly
    draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-04 (as the draft and the reference now is) will very shortly be
    RFC 7466, but this should be handled by the process and is not a reason for delay.

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

    With the addition of a MIB doctor review during IETF Last Call, the document shepherd is
    satisfied that sufficient reviews will have been performed.

(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.

    The document shepherd believes that no such reviews are required or beneficial.

(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 believes that there are now no such concerns.

(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?

    It is hard to get excited about an update to a MIB module, and there has not been much discussion in
    the WG on the topic of this MIB module in particular. However, as this update is imposed by the
    development and publication of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization, which has seen considerable
    discussion in the mailing list, the document shepherd has no concerns with consensus behind this
    document.

(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.

    idnits reports a mismatch between RFC2119 text and expected text. This is due to the addition of
  "NOT RECOMMENDED"  (which the document shepherd believes is correct) and use of the form
  [RFC2119] (possibly to prevent xml2rfc warning).

    No other ID nits identified.

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

    A MIB doctor review was undertaken of the draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib prior to publication as RFC6779.
    No MIB doctor review of this update has been done; it would be reasonable to request one as part
    of the IETF Last Call process. This is not expected to be onerous, given the relatively limited difference
    between RFC6779 and this document.

(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?

    There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization, which is intended for
    publication as Proposed Standard, and which is currently in IESG Evaluation.

(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 downrefs.

(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.

    Publication of this document will obsolete RFC6779
    This is indicated in the header, abstract and introduction - specifically, detailed in Section 1.1.

(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 5226).

    This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
    IANA registries.

(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.

    This document does not create any registries, nor does it request any allocations from existing
    IANA registries.

(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.

    The author (Ulrich Herberg) reports that suitable automated checks have been performed.