MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Identifiers Management Information Base (MIB)
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-11

The expert review came back with an explanation that the document is not requesting a registration in an expert review registry.  Instead in the MIB Transmission Group - MPLS STD MIB
Registration Procedure(s): Standards Action
Description:  iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.transmission.mplsStdMIB (1.3.6.1.2.1.10.166)
So no expert review is required.
The expert have the following comments:
The terminology 'registry' and 'sub-registry' that they are using in the IANA considerations section is not correct, please ask them to change the text - these are OID branches under mplsStdMIB. No ifType value is needed either.

[Ballot discuss]
Based on the feedback of the security AD, the security guidelines for the IETF MIB modules (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security) have been changed 9 months ago.
The exact change at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security?action=diff&version=7&old_version=6

[Ballot comment]
The MIB doctor latest review from Joan Cucchiara:

My comments (which I made to the authors also about Feb 28, 2015) was about these warnings:
Warning with SMICNG compiler:

W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (883,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified for "mplsOamIdMegOperStatus"
W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (888,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to access specified for "mplsOamIdMegSubOperStatus"

Yes, these are just warnings, but they are easily fixable and I believe the authors agreed to fix these warnings during the AD review process (that would be you

Other than these warnings, the MIB is fine with me to go forward.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

  Standards Track.

(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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes Operations, Administration, and
  Management (OAM) identifiers related managed objects for
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile
  (TP).

Working Group Summary

  There is good consensus from the WG, and there is no controversy.

Document Quality

  The draft has been a WG document for over two years. There was active
  discussion in the WG, it passed the MIB Doctor and experts review, many
  valuable comments received and addressed. A number of iterations
  reflecting that. There are number of vendors that either has or will
  implement the MIB module.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard

(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 draft and raised some 
  comments that have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publication.

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

  No.

(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.

  It has passed the review of MIB Doctor.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  None.

(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(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.

  None.

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

  The document passed the review of MIB Doctor.

  There (Version 08) are two warnings (as listed below) with SMICNG
  compiler, the plan is to address them with the AD review comments.

  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (883,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegOperStatus"
  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (888,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegSubOperStatus"

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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).
 
  The IANA section is well written, all IANA requests are clearly identified.

(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.

  No additional IANA registries are requested.

(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 draft (version 07 and 08) passed smilint.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08. Please see below for our reviewer's description of the proposed actions, as we understand them. If anything 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 MIB - Transmission Group - MPLS STD MIB of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

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

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: mplsOamIdStdMIB
Description: MPLS-TP OAM Identifiers
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

If an ifType registration isn't required, IANA will mark the corresponding ifType value "Reserved."

As this document requests registration in a Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before the registration can be made.

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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) Identifiers Management Information Base (MIB)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) Identifiers
  Management Information Base (MIB)'
  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 2015-08-27. 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes Operations, Administration, and
  Management (OAM) identifiers related managed objects for
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile
  (TP).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

  Standards Track.

(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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes Operations, Administration, and
  Management (OAM) identifiers related managed objects for
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile
  (TP).

Working Group Summary

  There is good consensus from the WG, and there is no controversy.

Document Quality

  The draft has been a WG document for over two years. There was active
  discussion in the WG, it passed the MIB Doctor and experts review, many
  valuable comments received and addressed. A number of iterations
  reflecting that. There are number of vendors that either has or will
  implement the MIB module.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: 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 the draft and raised some 
  comments that have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publication.

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

  No.

(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.

  It has passed the review of MIB Doctor.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  None.

(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(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.

  None.

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

  The document passed the review of MIB Doctor.

  There (Version 08) are two warnings (as listed below) with SMICNG
  compiler, the plan is to address them with the AD review comments.

  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (883,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegOperStatus"
  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (888,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegSubOperStatus"

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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).
 
  The IANA section is well written, all IANA requests are clearly identified.

(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.

  No additional IANA registries are requested.

(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 draft (version 07 and 08) passed smilint.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

  Standards Track.

(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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes Operations, Administration, and
  Management (OAM) identifiers related managed objects for
  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile
  (TP).

Working Group Summary

  There is good consensus from the WG, and there is no controversy.

Document Quality

  The draft has been a WG document for over two years. There was active
  discussion in the WG, it passed the MIB Doctor and experts review, many
  valuable comments received and addressed. A number of iterations
  reflecting that. There are number of vendors that either has or will
  implement the MIB module.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Mach Chen
  Responsible Area Director: 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 the draft and raised some 
  comments that have been solved in the latest version. After the review,
  the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the
  draft and it is ready for publication.

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

  No.

(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.

  It has passed the review of MIB Doctor.

(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.

  None.

(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.

  None.

(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? 

  There is good consensus from the WG.

(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.

  None.

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

  The document passed the review of MIB Doctor.

  There (Version 08) are two warnings (as listed below) with SMICNG
  compiler, the plan is to address them with the AD review comments.

  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (883,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegOperStatus"
  W: f(MPLS-TP-OAM-MIB.my), (888,22) MIN-ACCESS value identical to
  access specified for "mplsOamIdMegSubOperStatus"

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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).
 
  The IANA section is well written, all IANA requests are clearly identified.

(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.

  No additional IANA registries are requested.

(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 draft (version 07) passed smilint.