Managed Objects for ATM over Packet Switched Networks (PSNs)
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-06

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Moving draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-05.txt (Proposed Standard) forward
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:27:40 +0200
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib@tools.ietf.org, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Pasi Eronen <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>, Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov>



This is part of a general review of documents on my plate in the IESG in
advance of the Dublin meeting.  I am giving advice here on how to move
forward based on the current read of the tracker. See DISCUSS and
COMMENT actions cc'd from the tracker below.

Authors, it seems pretty clear to me that the security considerations
section needs a rewrite, for style as well as specific errors below.

I'm moving the document to Revised ID needed as I believe that it will
need a new version in order to be approved. Lead editors, please work
individually with discuss holders to better understand their positions,
so that the next version can be approved.





Ron Bonica:
Comment:
[2008-07-02] support Dan's discuss

Pasi Eronen:
Discuss:
[2008-07-02] Question from Jeffrey Hutzelman's SecDir review:
The description for pwAtmCfgTable indicates "An entry is created for
every newly pwIndex in the pwTable".  Is this true, or are entries
created in this table only for PW's carrying ATM?

Comment:
[2008-07-02] Jeffrey Hutzelman's SecDir review had some suggestions for
clarifications and editorial improvements; they're not blocking,
but should be considered in AUTH48 (if not earlier).

Tim Polk:
Discuss:
[2008-07-01] The security considerations section refers to pwTDMTable
when listing the readable tables and
objects that are security sensitive.  This table is specified in
pwe3-tdm-mib, so I believe this
is a cut and paste error.  From the susequent text, I infer that the
tables that specify the
connectivity topology are the missing link.  I wonder if the correct
reference is pwATMCfgTable?

Comment:
[2008-07-01] I support Dan's discuss regarding the formatting in the
security considerations section.  The text
is much more readable using the usual parentheses instead of the double
quotes.

Dan Romascanu:
Discuss:
[2008-07-02]
The Security Considerations section is departing from the text at
http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html, by replacing in a few places
brackets by double quotes. These changes which are non-conformant with
RFC4181 are making the texts confusing, which was also remarked in the
SECDIR Review. I suggest to stick to the guidelines and to use the
standard text.

Comment:
[2008-07-02] The introduction section mentions the PWE3 WG and mail list
for further comments. I believe that this is inapropriate, as the future
RFC may be longer lived than the WG.

[Ballot comment]
The introduction section mentions the PWE3 WG and mail list for further comments. I believe that this is inapropriate, as the future RFC may be longer lived than the WG.

[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations section is departing from the text at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html, by replacing in a few places brackets by double quotes. These changes which are non-conformant with RFC4181 are making the texts confusing, which was also remarked in the SECDIR Review. I suggest to stick to the guidelines and to use the standard text.

[Ballot discuss]
Question from Jeffrey Hutzelman's SecDir review:
The description for pwAtmCfgTable indicates "An entry is created for
every newly pwIndex in the pwTable".  Is this true, or are entries
created in this table only for PW's carrying ATM?

[Ballot comment]
Jeffrey Hutzelman's SecDir review had some suggestions for
clarifications and editorial improvements; they're not blocking,
but should be considered in AUTH48 (if not earlier).

[Ballot comment]
I support Dan's discuss regarding the formatting in the security considerations section.  The text
is much more readable using the usual parentheses instead of the double quotes.

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section refers to pwTDMTable when listing the readable tables and
objects that are security sensitive.  This table is specified in pwe3-tdm-mib, so I believe this
is a cut and paste error.  From the susequent text, I infer that the tables that specify the
connectivity topology are the missing link.  I wonder if the correct reference is pwATMCfgTable?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a preliminary DISCUSS, other issues may be added as I am still reading through the document.

The Security Considerations section is departing from the text at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html, by replacing in a few places brackets by double quotes. These changes which are non-conformant with RFC4181 are making the texts confusing, which was also remarked in the SECDIR Review. I suggest to stick to the guidelines and to use the standard text.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a MIB-2
number for the Pseudo Wire emulation of ATM over Packet Switched
Networks (pwAtmMIB) MIB in the prefix:
iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1) at the following
location:

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

We understand this to be the only IANA Action required upon
approval of this document.

> PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-04
>
> The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
> of this document.
>
> (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
>
> Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net) is the Shepherd. I have
> reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.
>
>  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
>          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>          have been performed?
>
> This document (-02 revision) has been reviewed by the WG, both through
> the LC process (ending 2007-03-25), and at IETF WG meetings. There
> were comments during and subsequent to the LC, but all comments have
> been addressed by the authors.
>
> I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document, although
> an updated version needs to be submitted simply to deal with the 
> expiry
> issue of the -03 version.  The authors intend to submit this ASAP.
>
>  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>          AAA, internationalization or XML?
>
> I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review of
> this document, although MIB Doctor review needs to occur and a
> good bit of coordination has already occurred on that front per
> MIB Doctor author participation on this document.
>
>  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>          issues 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.
>
> I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
> concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.
>
>  (1.e)  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?
>
> This document is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
> WG.  There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
> and it is generally supported across the WG.
>
>  (1.f)  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
>          entered into the ID Tracker.)
>
> No one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
> have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
> document.
>
>  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
>          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
>          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the
> document
>          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
>
> No.  MIB Doctor review has been initiated, although not yet
> complete.  There has been involvement of MIB Doctor folks
> with this document already.
>
>  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
>          informative?
>
> Yes.
>
>          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
>          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative
> references
>          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
>          so, list these downward references to support the Area
>          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
>
> PWMPLSMIB  Is currently with the IESG
> Normative Reference ATMTRANS needs to point to rfc4816.
>
> Normative references to PWMIB and PWTC are only comments,
> with both documents currently in the IESG Processing queue.
>
>  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
>          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
>          reasonable name for the new registry?  See
>          [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
>          describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred
> with
>          the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint
> the
>          needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
>
> The IANA Consideration Section of the document provides the
> following IANA and RFC Editor Guidance, which we believe to
> be straight-forward and reasonable:
>
> ---
>  The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
>  OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:
>
>  Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
>
>  ---------- -----------------------
>
>  pwATMMIB { transmission XXX }
>
>  Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): the IANA is
>  requested to assign a value for "XXX" under the 'transmission'
>  subtree and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry.
>  When the assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to
> replace
>  "XXX" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to
>  remove this note.
> ---
>
>  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>          an automated checker?
>
> No, although we have verified this with the authors.  We have
> also initiated MIB Doctor review on this document.
>
>  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
>          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
>          Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
>          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>          announcement contains the following sections:
>
>          Technical Summary
>
>  This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management
>  Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in
>  the Internet community.  In particular, it describes managed objects
>  for modeling ATM Pseudowire (PW) carrying ATM cells over Packet
>  Switch Network (PSN) as defined in RFC 4717 and RFC 4816.
>
>          Working Group Summary
>
> This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG
> and there are no outstanding issues.
>
>          Protocol Quality
>
> This is a very simple and well written, no protocol issues are
> anticipated and no outstanding technical issues exist..
>
>          Personnel
>            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
>
> Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net)
>
>            Who is the Responsible Area Director?
>
> Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)