Shepherd writeup
rfc7367-13

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated December 1, 2012.
 (1.a) Stan Ratliff (sratliff@cisco.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 
         additional review. 
 (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: 
   Technical Summary 
         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. 
   Document Quality 
         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
         the MIB.
         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.
Back