Softwire Mesh Management Information Base (MIB)
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-05-24
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-05-11
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-05-02
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2016-05-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-29
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-29
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-04-28
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-04-28
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs |
2016-02-22
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2016-01-15
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress |
2016-01-11
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-01-08
|
14 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-01-08
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-01-08
|
14 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-01-08
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-01-08
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-01-08
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-08
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-19
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Thanks for solving the DISCUSS point quickly. Regards, Benoit |
2015-12-19
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-12-19
|
14 | Jiang Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-14.txt |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot discuss] From the diff, I spotted that you imported smi-2. It should be mib-2 So basically, you haven't checked that your MIB module compiles … [Ballot discuss] From the diff, I spotted that you imported smi-2. It should be mib-2 So basically, you haven't checked that your MIB module compiles :-( http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/bin/smitools.cgi Your request has been processed by the command timeout 10 smilint -s -e -l 6 mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB 2>report.txt You can access any intermediately created files, the processing report (which might be empty if no errors or warnings have been found), and output files (in case of a conversion request) for reading and download from a temporary server directory for approx. 24 hours. While processing your request the following errors and/or warnings have been found: mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:4: [2] {import-failed} identifier `smi-2' cannot be imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:56: [2] {bad-identifier-case} `XXX' should start with a lower case letter mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:56: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `XXX' name only allowed as first element mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:56: [1] {object-identifier-unknown} unknown object identifier label `mib-2' mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:19: [2] {module-identity-registration} illegal module identity registration mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:121: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `swmEncapsEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 136 subidentifier(s) mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:221: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `swmBGPNeighborEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 135 subidentifier(s) |
2015-12-17
|
13 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-12-08
|
13 | Jiang Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-13.txt |
2015-12-03
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2015-12-03
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-12-03
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] needs work before progressing. |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot comment text updated for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-12-02
|
12 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] - section 5.1, first two sentences: The text can be interpreted to mean the subtree is the mechanism for that negotiation. I assume … [Ballot comment] - section 5.1, first two sentences: The text can be interpreted to mean the subtree is the mechanism for that negotiation. I assume that's not the intent? -5.1, last sentence: I don't understand; what different tunnel? -8, paragraph 6: Do the 2119 keywords in this paragaph represent new requirements specified in this draft, or do they describe existing requirements from SNMPv3? If the latter, please use descriptive language rather than 2119 keywords. -5.1, Third sentence: Missing article before "Softwire mesh framework...". |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Ben Campbell | Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot discuss] As advised by the MIB doctors, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-04 (and draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib too btw) must be moved under mib-2 |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Benoît Claise | Ballot discuss text updated for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot discuss] As advised by the MIB doctors, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-04 (and draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib too btw) should be moved under mib-2? |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] From Dave Thaler (MIB doctors) It does contain an number of typos and English grammar issues that should be addressed before publication. I … [Ballot comment] From Dave Thaler (MIB doctors) It does contain an number of typos and English grammar issues that should be addressed before publication. I put a marked up copy up where it should shortly appear as http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-12.pdf |
2015-12-01
|
12 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-11-30
|
12 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2015-11-30
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-11-30
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-11-25
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-11-25
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Jiang Dong | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Jiang Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-12.txt |
2015-11-23
|
11 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2015-11-23
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-11-20
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2015-11-20
|
11 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed. Reviewer: DENG Hui. |
2015-11-20
|
11 | (System) | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2015-11-19
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-03 |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot has been issued |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-11-17
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-11-15
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-11-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-12
|
11 | Michelle Cotton | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has questions about the actions to be completed for this document: In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers a new MIB will be registered as follows: Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ] Name: swmMIB Description: Softwire Mesh References: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA upon approval of this document. QUESTION TO AUTHORS: We want to be absolutely sure where this mib assignment goes. We understand this to be a mib-2 assignment as described in the Editor's note. However, the assignment for mib is described as follows: swmMIB { transmission XXX } Should this be a transmission assignment? Also, we see softwireMesh ("xx"). Is this an additional assignment? Can you clarify the exact request for assignment and which registry? Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-11-10
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-11-10
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
2015-11-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: softwires@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: softwires@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@ietf.org, softwire-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Softwire Mesh Management Information Base (MIB)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider the following document: - 'Softwire Mesh Management Information Base (MIB)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-11-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract 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 objects for managing softwire mesh. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Last call was requested |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Hui Deng performed an INT area review: Hi I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit … Hui Deng performed an INT area review: Hi I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html. This document defines MIB objects to manage softwire mesh solutions, and targets the Standards Track. Please find below review comments: 1) Page 5 in section 6.2, “The tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress MUST be set to 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 or :: for IPv6 because it is a point to multi-point tunnel.” It needs quotation mark for 0.0.0.0 and :: 2) In the MIB definitions, it needs REFERENCE for the IMPORT objects. eg: swmEncapsEIPDst OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The E-IP destination prefix, which is used for I-IP encapsulation destination looking up." ::= { swmEncapsEntry 2 } It should add a REFERENCE “E-IP and I-IP in RFC 5565 ”. The same comment for the definition of swmEncapsIIPDst. 3) In page 8, swmEncapsEIPDstType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object specifies the address type used for swmEncapsEIPDst. It is different from the tunnelIfAddressType in the tunnelIfTable." ::= { swmEncapsEntry 1 } It should list ipv4(1) and ipv6(2) in the DESCRIPTION for different scenario. Also it should add a REFERENCE to RFC 4001. 4) In page 8, SwmEncapsEntry: I think swmEncapsEIPDstType and swmEncapsIIPDstType should just be swmEncapsIPDstType and apply to both. If all address objects in the row are of the same type, you only need one type object. 5) In page 7, “Represents the tunnel type that the AFBR supports” in definition of swmSupportedTunnelType. It need a clarification that It represents the tunnel type used for softwire mesh scenario. 6) As it states in the section 6.1, the ifInucastPkts counts the number of IPv6 packets which are sent to the virtual interface for decapsulation into IPv4. I think it need some statistics objects to define for the softwire mesh such as the number of the connection tunnel when running point to multi-point tunnel. 7) Why not define a parameter for swmEncapsIIPDstPrefixLength? 8) In the swmEncapsGroup, there are only information about swmEncapsIIPDst and swmEncapsIIPDstType, why there are not swmEncapsEIPDst and swmEncapsIIPType and so on? Best regards, DENG Hui |
2015-11-01
|
11 | Terry Manderson | Carlos Pignataro performed an INT Area review Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit … Carlos Pignataro performed an INT Area review Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html. This document defines MIB objects to manage softwire mesh solutions, and targets the Standards Track. I have a number of comments and concerns with this document, which amount to requesting the ADs to take a closer look: 3. Terminology This document uses terminology from the softwire problem statement RFC 4925 [RFC4925] and the softwire mesh framework RFC 5565 [RFC5565]. CMP: I think terminology from RFC 5512 is also heavily used. 5.1. The swmSupportedTunnelTable Subtree According to section 4 of RFC 5512 [RFC5512], current softwire mesh tunnel types include IP-IP, GRE and L2TPv3. CMP: This is true, but at the same time there are now many other “current tunnel types” (which are actually BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types). See http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#tunnel-types Specifically the ones introduced by RFC5566 ought to be included. CMP: This comment also applies to swmSupportedTunnelType XX. Missing sub-TLVs CMP: If the Tunnel Type is one which requires encapsulation information (e.g., L2TPv3 Session ID, Cookie, GRE Key, etc.), how is that information managed? I cannot seem to find it in the MIB Module. See Section 4.1 of RFC 5512. CMP: Similarly, what about Protocol Type and Color (S4.2 and 4.3 of RFC 5512), and IPsec Tunnel Authenticator (RFC 5566)? CMP: Similarly, what about the Load-Balancing Block values from RFC 5640? Without this, an ECMP-aware L2TPv3 tunnel will be misunderstood. 8. Security Considerations The swmMIB module can be used for configuration of certain objects, CMP: How is this so, without read-write or read-create? 11. References 11.1. Normative References CMP: Curiously, I do not see RFC 5566 or RFC 5640 referenced. Hope these help! Thanks, — Carlos. |
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from softwire-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib.ad@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2015-10-02
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to softwire-chairs@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib.ad@ietf.org from "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The Softwire mesh framework is a tunneling mechanism that enables the connectivity between islands of IPv4 networks across a single IPv6 backbone and vice versa. In softwire mesh, extended multiprotocol-BGP (MP-BGP)is used to set up tunnels and advertise prefixes among address family border routers (AFBRs). The softwire mesh MIB provides a method to configure and manage the softwire mesh objects through SNMP. Working Group Summary The working group had active discussion on the draft and the current text of the draft is representative of the consensus of the working group. There were no controversial discussions regarding this document. Document Quality The document has received adequate review. The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. There was a MIB doctor review that raised a few issues that have since been resolved. Personnel Suresh Krishnan is the document shepherd. Terry Manderson is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed several versions of this document. Earlier versions of the document had some clear issues that needed to be fixed. So I requested an early MIB doctor review. The issues have since been resolved. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document needed specialized review from the MIB perspective and the MIB doctor review by Dave Thaler provided that. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. The MIB contained in the document produces two warnings with smilint as described in Question 19. The MIB doctor review of this document in version -03 did not contain any remarks about these warnings and I am assuming this warning are benign. I just wanted to provide a heads up to the OPS ADs. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) 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? The consensus behind this document is pretty weak as this document was held back until the softwire stateless transition solutions went through the publication process. The document represents strong concurrence of a few individuals with nobody opposed. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document has been reviewed by MIB doctors. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document requires two IANA actions. It requires an assignment under the SMI Numbers registry and it registers a new tunnel type. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. I ran the libsmi checker on the document. It threw up two errors and two warnings. The two errors that come up are mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:56: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `xxx' name only allowed as first element mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:18: [2] {module-identity-registration} illegal module identity registration These will get fixed once IANA allocates the value xxx. I did put in an available number to check and these errors went away. The two warnings were also produced. Not sure what is causing these. A look at the swmEncapsEntry and swmBGPNeighborEntry does not show any obvious issues. mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:110: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `swmEncapsEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 136 subidentifier(s) mibs/SOFTWIRE-MESH-MIB:198: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `swmBGPNeighborEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 135 subidentifier(s) |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Notification list changed to "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Document shepherd changed to Suresh Krishnan |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2015-10-01
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Changed document writeup |
2015-09-30
|
11 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11.txt |
2015-09-29
|
10 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-10.txt |
2015-09-22
|
09 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-09.txt |
2015-03-05
|
08 | Yuchi Chen | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-08.txt |
2014-07-22
|
07 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-07.txt |
2014-04-06
|
06 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-06.txt |
2014-03-11
|
05 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-05.txt |
2013-11-02
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Document |
2013-11-02
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2013-11-02
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | Annotation tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. |
2013-09-08
|
04 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-04.txt |
2013-05-23
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-03-10
|
03 | Yong Cui | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt |
2013-02-23
|
02 | Peng Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-02.txt |
2013-01-02
|
01 | Peng Wu | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-01.txt |
2012-07-02
|
00 | Jiang Dong | New version available: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-00.txt |