Management Information Base for OSPFv3
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-16

[Ballot comment]
idnits highlights that RFCs 3414 and 3415 exist in the references but are not not cited in the text. This will need to be fixed before RFC editing is complete.

[Ballot comment]
Two minor editorial nits in section 6 (security considerations):

in paragraph 1:
s/by this MIB may result/by this MIB module may result/

in paragraph 2:
s/MIB allows the discovery/MIB module allows the discovery/

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignment in the "iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

Decimal Name Description References
------- | ---- | ----------- | ----------
TBD | ospfvMIB | The MIB module for OSPF verion 3 | [RFC-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

Updated PROTO writeup by Acee Lindem:

          Management Information Base for OSPFv3
              draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
    Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
    to forward to the IESG for publication?

    Yes

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
    key non-WG members?

    Yes - It has been reviewed by both WG members and a MIB doctor.

    Do you have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
   
    No

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
    complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

    No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
    you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
    perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
    or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
    event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
    indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
    those concerns in the write-up.

    No

  5. 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 has been on the WG charter since 2002. Comments have been
    requested several times and changes have been covered in slides
    at WG meetings.  There has been ample time for review and, to
    the best of my knowledge, there is no dissent to its adoption.     
   

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
    in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

    No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
    of the ID Checklist items?

  Yes - other than the IPR boiler plate needs to be udpated.
  idnits 2.11.11

  tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
    references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

    Yes

    Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
    normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
    such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

    No

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
    Standard, Informational?)

    Proposed Standard

10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
    announcement includes a write-up section with the following
    sections:

    * Technical Summary
    * Working Group Summary
    * Protocol Quality

The OSPFv3 MIB has been in the charter since I became WG chair in 2002.
As implied by the title, it describes the Management Information Base (MIB) for the OSPFv3 protocol. It is very similar in structure to the
OSPFv2 MIB as described in RFC 4750. There are some differences in the
MIB due to differences in the protocol and the fact that we were not
tied to compatibility with an earlier RFC (RFC 1850 for the OSPFv2 MIB).

Various revisions of the OSPFv3 MIB draft have been implemented as vendor
specific MIBs by multiple vendors. These vendors have had the
opportunity to bring any problems to the attention of the WG.

We have been through the MIB doctor reivew and all comments have been
addressed.

Updated PROTO writeup by Acee Lindem:

          Management Information Base for OSPFv3
              draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
    Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
    to forward to the IESG for publication?

    Yes

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
    key non-WG members?

    Yes - It has been reviewed by both WG members and a MIB doctor.

    Do you have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
   
    No

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
    complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

    No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
    you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
    perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
    or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
    event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
    indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
    those concerns in the write-up.

    No

  5. 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 has been on the WG charter since 2002. Comments have been
    requested several times and changes have been covered in slides
    at WG meetings.  There has been ample time for review and, to
    the best of my knowledge, there is no dissent to its adoption.     
   

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
    in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

    No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
    of the ID Checklist items?

  Yes - other than the IPR boiler plate needs to be udpated.
  idnits 2.11.11

  tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
    references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

    Yes

    Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
    normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
    such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

    No

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
    Standard, Informational?)

    Proposed Standard

10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
    announcement includes a write-up section with the following
    sections:

    * Technical Summary
    * Working Group Summary
    * Protocol Quality

The OSPFv3 MIB has been in the charter since I became WG chair in 2002.
As implied by the title, it describes the Management Information Base (MIB) for the OSPFv3 protocol. It is very similar in structure to the
OSPFv2 MIB as described in RFC 4750. There are some differences in the
MIB due to differences in the protocol and the fact that we were not
tied to compatibility with an earlier RFC (RFC 1850 for the OSPFv2 MIB).

Various revisions of the OSPFv3 MIB draft have been implemented as vendor
specific MIBs by multiple vendors. These vendors have had the
opportunity to bring any problems to the attention of the WG.

We have been through the MIB doctor reivew and all comments have been
addressed.

PROTO Writeup by Acee Lindem:

          Management Information Base for OSPFv3
              draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-12.txt

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
    Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
    to forward to the IESG for publication?

    Yes

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
    key non-WG members?

    Yes - It has been reviewed by both WG members and a MIB doctor.

    Do you have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
   
    No

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
    complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

    No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
    you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
    perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
    or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
    event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
    indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
    those concerns in the write-up.

    No

  5. 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 has been on the WG charter since 2002. Comments have been
    requested several times and changes have been covered in slides
    at WG meetings.  There has been ample time for review and, to
    the best of my knowledge, there is no dissent to its adoption.     
   

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
    in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

    No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
    of the ID Checklist items?

    Yes - other than the IPR boiler plate needs to be udpated.

    idnits 2.11.11

  tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-14.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
    references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

    Yes

    Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
    normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
    such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

    No

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
    Standard, Informational?)

    Proposed Standard

10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
    announcement includes a write-up section with the following
    sections:

    * Technical Summary
    * Working Group Summary
    * Protocol Quality

The OSPFv3 MIB has been in the charter since I became WG chair in 2002. As implied by the title, it describes the Management Information Base (MIB) for the OSPFv3 protocol. It is very similar in structure to the OSPFv2 MIB as described in RFC 4750. There are some differences in the MIB due to differences in the protocol and the fact that we were not tied to compatibility with an earlier RFC (RFC 1850 for the OSPFv2 MIB).

Various revisions of the OSPFv3 MIB draft have been implemented as vendor
specificMIBs by multiple vendors. These vendors have had the opportunity
to bring any problems to the attention of the WG.

We have been through the MIB doctor review.

State Changes to AD Evaluation                                    from New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    by IESG Member

State Changes to New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    from Token@wg or Author                                by IESG Member