Changes are expected over time. This version is dated December 1, 2012.
(1.a) Stan Ratliff (email@example.com) is the document shepherd for this document.
The shepherd has personally reviewed the document, and believes it is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) The document has had adequate review from both key working group members
and from key non-WG members. The shepherd does not have any concerns
about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.
(1.c) The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document needing
(1.d) The shepherd does not have any concerns or issues with the document that the
responsible Area Director or the IESG need to be aware of. IPR disclosures
were not necessary, therefore, none have been filed.
(1.e) Working group consensus behind this document is solid. The document
represents strong concurrence of the working group as a whole, the the WG
understands and agrees with the document.
(1.f) No one has threatened appeal or has indicated discontent with the document.
(1.g) The document shepherd has run the "idnits" tool against the document. The
document has met all required formal review criteria.
(1.h) The document has split its references into normative and informative. There are
no downward references.
(1.i) The shepherd has verified that document IANA consideration section exists, and
is consistent with the body of the document. No protocol extensions are
requested. The necessary IANA registries are clearly defined. No new registries
are requested. No expert review has been requested.
(1.j) The document has been run through the "smilint" checker. No warnings (at any
level) or errors exist.
(1.k) 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:
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for
use with the Simplified Multicast Framework (SMF) RFC6621 developed in the
MANET working group.
Working Group Summary
The process for reaching working group consensus on this was smooth; no
controversy existed. Working group consensus behind the document is solid.
This document shepherd is not aware of existing implementations of this MIB
although a joint development is underway between the US Naval Research
laboratory and the US Army CERDEC organizations.
Early review by MIB doctor was discussed within the working group, however,
the WG consensus was that this review was unnecessary, as the WG contains
sufficient expertise to determine applicability of all objects, and correctness of
MIB doctor review during IETF last call resulted in considerable discussion and
document revision. The version entering IESG evaluation is believed to address
all issues needing change although there was one issue where the authors
believe the MIB Doctor is advocating a different approach rather than stating
something that needs to be changed.