(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 <xref> 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.