Shepherd writeup

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? 

Proposed Standard. The header mentions incorrectly 'Standards Track' - this needs to be changed

 (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 updates RFC 5066.  It amends that specification by
   informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU-
   MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB
   Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
   Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group. This document provides an updated
   security considerations section for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB

Working Group Summary:

   The document was much simplified during the Working Group discussions, 
   and now contains only information about the transfer of the Ethernet 
   specific MIB module to the IEEE and describes the fact that the 
   IF-CAP-STACK-MIB remains under IETF control.  

Document Quality:

   The document does not define a new protocol, but provides information about 
   the future of the MIB modules defined in RFC 5066


Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Benoit Claise is the Responsible Area Director. 

(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. 

I reviewed the document and I believe that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 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 IEEE 802.3 Working Group, specifically the IEEE 802.3.1 Task Group chair reviewed several versions of the document. The document will be referred by the IEEE 802.3.1 standard. 

(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. 

All issues were resolved during the Working Group discussions and reviews. There are no concerns left. 

(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?

The document describes changes in status of the technical material in RFC 5066 without introducing new technical content. The document editor confirmed the conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 at each submission. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 


(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? 

Consensus is solid. The number of contributors is not high, bu they are representative for the MIB design community. 

(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.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 


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

As there is no new MIB module in the document a MIB doctor review as per RFC 4181 is not needed. Sending the IETF Last Call announcement to the MIB Doctors team and asking for a quick look from people not involved until now with the document can be useful. 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 


(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? 


(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. 


(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. 

The document updates but does not change the status of RFC 5066. This was discussed by the WG. 

(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 considerations section mentions that no actions are required from IANA. 

(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. 


(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.