Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base (MIB)
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-14

[Ballot comment]
Please delete this paragraph from the Introduction:
  >
  > Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
  > pwe3@ietf.org.

[Ballot discuss]
The Abstract says that this document "defines an experimental portion
  of the Management Information Base"; however, this document is on the
  stabdards strack.  I strongly suspect that the Abstract needs to be
  updated.

[Ballot comment]
1. Since the last version of this document was published RFC2434 was obsoleted by RFC5226.

2. Section 6 'Structure of the MIB module' refers only to the PW-STD-MIB module. In fact this document also defines IANA-PWE3-MIB. The section should be renamed 'Structure of the MIB modules' and include information about the latest.

3. I suggest to document the enumerated values in the TCs in the IANA-PWE3-MIB with one line of explanation - expanding acronyms and maybe providing also a reference for each. This would help future users of the TCs when they will access the information directly from the IANA repositories.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
sub-registry "Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.transmission (1.3.6.1.2.1.10)"

Decimal Name Description
------- ---- -----------
[tbd] pwStdMIB PW-STD-MIB [RFC-pwe3-pw-mib-12]
[tbd] ianaPwe3MIB IANA-PWE3-MIB [RFC-pwe3-pw-mib-12]

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

PROTO Write-up

(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 has been reviewed by the WG, both through the LC
process (ending 2007-09-29), and at IETF WG meetings. There were
no comments during the one week LC that has just completed.

I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document.

(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?

Yes. As a matter of fact, an updated ID correcting earlier ID nits
was provided by the authors several revisions ago.

(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].

draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib, which is in publication requested
state, is the only Normative reference in limbo at the moment.
We foresee progressing the two documents in parallel.

(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?

Sections 11 & 14 of the document provide discussion of IANA
considerations associated with the document. 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
---------- -----------------------

pwStdMIB { transmission ZZZZ }

Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
requested to assign a value for "ZZZZ" 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
"ZZZZ" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to
remove this note.

IANA is also requested to register a value for a PW type in the
IANAifType-MIB.

14.2. IANA Considerations for IANA-PWE3-MIB

The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
---------- -----------------------

ianaPwe3MIB { transmission XXXX }

Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
requested to assign a value for "XXXX" 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
"XXXX" (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
performed a preliminary MIB Doctor review by having Orly Nicklass
review the MIBs in detail, and made many changes based on her
suggestions. We have verified that they compile with SMICng,
and is clean using SmiLint.

(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 a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it defines a MIB module that can be used to manage
pseudowire (PW) services for transmission over a packet Switched
Network (PSN) [RFC3931] [RFC4447]. This MIB module provides generic
management of PWs which is common to all types of PSN and PW
services defined by the IETF PWE3 Working Group.

Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG,
has been WG last called several times, and there are no outstanding
issues.

Protocol Quality

This is very straight-forward 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)