Managed Objects for Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet Switched Networks (PSNs)
draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-mib-11

[Ballot discuss]
pwTDMCfgEntry  OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX            PwTDMCfgEntry
    MAX-ACCESS        not-accessible
    STATUS            current
    DESCRIPTION
        "These parameters define the characteristics of a
          TDM PW. They are grouped here to ease NMS burden.
          Once an entry is created here it may be re-used
          by many PWs.
          Unless otherwise specified, all objects in this table
          MUST NOT be changed after row activation (see [PWMIB])
          if the row index is in use by an entry in pwTDMTable.
          Rows must persist after reboot."


The last sentence contradicts the fact that this table has a StorageType object.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Moving draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-mib-10.txt (Proposed Standard) forward
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:48:24 +0200
From: Mark Townsley
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-mib@tools.ietf.org, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Dan Romascanu , Ron Bonica , Pasi Eronen , Tim Polk




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:
Comment:
[2008-07-01] Editorial suggestions from Scott Kelly's SecDir review:
- I would suggest adding a sentence to the introduction which
articulates the background the reader is assumed to have, for
example, what RFCs they are expected to be conversant with,
in order to understand the content of this document.
- TDM should be expanded with first use

Tim Polk:
Comment:
[2008-07-01] As noted in Scott Kelly's secdir review and Dan's
preliminary discuss, the replacement of
parentheses with double quotes is somewhat confusing.  Since Dan is
already holding a discuss,
I am balloting NoObj but would like to note that I support Dan's position.

Dan Romascanu:
Discuss:
[2008-07-02] 1. 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 Security Review. I suggest to stick to the
guidelines and to use the standard text.

2.
pwTDMCfgEntry  OBJECT-TYPE
  SYNTAX            PwTDMCfgEntry
  MAX-ACCESS        not-accessible
  STATUS            current
  DESCRIPTION
      "These parameters define the characteristics of a
        TDM PW. They are grouped here to ease NMS burden.
        Once an entry is created here it may be re-used
        by many PWs.
        Unless otherwise specified, all objects in this table
        MUST NOT be changed after row activation (see [PWMIB])
        if the row index is in use by an entry in pwTDMTable.
        Rows must persist after reboot."


The last sentence contradicts the fact that this table has a StorageType
object.

[Ballot discuss]
1. 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 Security Review. I suggest to stick to the guidelines and to use the standard text.

2.
  pwTDMCfgEntry  OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX            PwTDMCfgEntry
    MAX-ACCESS        not-accessible
    STATUS            current
    DESCRIPTION
        "These parameters define the characteristics of a
          TDM PW. They are grouped here to ease NMS burden.
          Once an entry is created here it may be re-used
          by many PWs.
          Unless otherwise specified, all objects in this table
          MUST NOT be changed after row activation (see [PWMIB])
          if the row index is in use by an entry in pwTDMTable.
          Rows must persist after reboot."


The last sentence contradicts the fact that this table has a StorageType object.

[Ballot comment]
1. The introduction has text about comments to be made to the WG and the WG list. I believe that this text needs to be dropped, as the future RFC may be longer lived than the WG

2. In Section 3, s/[SATOP] draft/[SATOP]

3. Last paragraph in Section 3 uses RFC2119 keywords. I wonder whether this is appropriate, as the text describes terminology and functionality defined someplace else and not in this document,

4. The procedure described in Section 7 ends with verifying that pwTDMConfigError returns no error. What actions are being taken by a manager and by the agent if there are errors reported in this object? Is the procedure repeated from start, from some place within the algorithm, do any entries need to be cleared and configured again?

5. The document makes a non-consistent use of the UNITS clause - it is defined for some objects it is not for other.

6. The DESCRIPTION clause of pwTDMValidDayIntervals defines the minimal value as 1. Why is then the syntax allowing for 0, is there any special significance?

[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 Security Review. I suggest to stick to the guidelines and to use the standard text.

[Ballot comment]
As noted in Scott Kelly's secdir review and Dan's preliminary discuss, the replacement of
parentheses with double quotes is somewhat confusing.  Since Dan is already holding a discuss,
I am balloting NoObj but would like to note that I support Dan's position.

[Ballot comment]
Editorial suggestions from Scott Kelly's SecDir review:
- I would suggest adding a sentence to the introduction which
articulates the background the reader is assumed to have, for
example, what RFCs they are expected to be conversant with,
in order to understand the content of this document.
- TDM should be expanded with first use

[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 Security 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 make the following
assignments in the "Network Management Parameters" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
Sub-registry: "Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"

Decimal Name Description References
------- ---- ----------- ----------
TBD pwTDMMIB PW-TDM-MIB [RFC-pwe3-tdm-mib-09]

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

PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-mib-09

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 (-07 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.

(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].

TDMCP-EXT is Normative Referenced and still a Work in Progress
within the PWE3 WG. It is to be submitted to the IESG in the
very near future.

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

---------- -----------------------

pwTDMMIB { mib-2 XXX }

Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): the IANA is
requested to assign a value for "XXX" under the mib-2 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 a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes managed objects for pseudo wire
encapsulation for structured or unstructured TDM (T1, E1, T3, E3)
circuits over a Packet Switch Network (PSN).

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)