RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server MIB
draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-06

IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a mib-2 number for
RADIUS-DYNAUTH-CLIENT-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
for this document.

PROTO writeup by WG chairs:

This PROTO IESG submission write-up covers the following Internet Drafts, from the RADEXT WG, that should be considered for a "group ballot":

draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-03.txt
draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-03.txt

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
  they believe this ID is sufficiently baked 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? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The documents have at various stages received comment from WG members Glen Zorn, Alan DeKok, Greg Weber, Bert Wijnen and Jari Arkko as well as MIB Doctor Dan Romascanu.

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 whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
  time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
  indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No.  There was an extensive WG discussion as to whether the use of terminology in the MIB documents effectively created normative extensions to the underlying protocol RFC.  This issue was satisfactorily resolved.

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?

These documents have generated about the same level of comments as others completing WGLC in the RADEXT WG.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
  ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
  and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
  also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
  (Note: 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.)

(a) Yes.  (b) No.

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

The two MIB documents are Informational, as the base RFC [RFC3576] is Informational.

State Change Notice email list have been change to dnelson@enterasys.com, aboba@internaut.com, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be, njonnala@cisco.com, mchiba@cisco.com;david.kessens@nokia.com from dnelson@enterasys.com, aboba@internaut.com, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com

Changed intended status to: Informational
as per below email.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:32
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Bernard Aboba (E-mail); David Kessens
Subject: RE: RadiustExt WG MIB documents


So, the dynauth-server MIB has shown up as Publication Requested in the
I-D Tracker tool.  It is listed as Proposed Standard status, but should
be Informational, like the dynauth-client MIB.