Definitions of Managed Objects for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 (VRRPv3)
draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Dan Romascanu |
2012-01-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-01-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on WGC |
2012-01-09
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from Waiting on Authors |
2011-12-09
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-12-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2011-12-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-11-30
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text changed |
2011-11-30
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-11-28
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2011-11-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-06
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-10-06
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-10-06
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Is it normal for 2119 language to appear in the MIB description sections? Seems like an odd thing to put in there, given … [Ballot comment] Is it normal for 2119 language to appear in the MIB description sections? Seems like an odd thing to put in there, given that it occurs nowhere else in the document. |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I would like to see an expansion of the text in section 7 to answer Robert's comment. |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-10-05
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] Why does this document have a normative reference to RFC 2787 if it is obsoleting that specification? |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot discuss] Why does this document have a normative reference to RFC 2787 if it is obsoleting that specification? |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I support Dan's #2 discuss. |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I agree with Dan's discuss point #2 |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] 1. closed 2. It would be useful to add UNITS clauses for the counter objects. 3. closed |
2011-10-04
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS and COMMENT modified following the RFC Editor Note. This document went a long way and is now in a pretty good shape. … [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS and COMMENT modified following the RFC Editor Note. This document went a long way and is now in a pretty good shape. A couple of issues are worth being fixed before I can cast a Yes ballot: 1. closed 2. I find the description of the vulnerabilities of the writeable objects in the Security Considerations section as insufficient. Please describe what are the effects settings of the vrrpv3OperationsPriority, vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr, vrrpv3OperationsAdvInterval, vrrpv3OperationsPreemptMode, vrrpv3OperationsAcceptMode objects at the wrong values, or of creating or deleting rows using vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrRowStatus. |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] 1. Typo in Section 9: OLD: Prior = vrrpOpeartionsPriority NEW: Prior = vrrpv3OperationsPriority 2. It would be useful to add UNITS clauses for … [Ballot comment] 1. Typo in Section 9: OLD: Prior = vrrpOpeartionsPriority NEW: Prior = vrrpv3OperationsPriority 2. It would be useful to add UNITS clauses for the counter objects. 3. The DESCRIPTION clause of vrrpv3StatisticsNewMasterReason is somehow fuzzy. "This indicates the reason for the virtual router to transition to MASTER state. If the virtual router never transitioned to master state, this SHOULD be set to notmaster(0). Otherwise this indicates the reason this virtual router transitioned to master state the last time. Used by vrrpv3NewMaster notification." Is there any reason for the SHOULD not to be a MUST? This is a value written by the agent so it is all under software control. Looks like OLD: If the virtual router never transitioned to master state, this SHOULD be set to notmaster(0). NEW: If the virtual router never transitioned to master state,the value of this object MUST ne notMaster(0). |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] This document went a long way and is now in a pretty good shape. A couple of issues are worth being fixed before … [Ballot discuss] This document went a long way and is now in a pretty good shape. A couple of issues are worth being fixed before I can cast a Yes ballot: 1. In the DESCRIPTION of the behavior of vrrpv3OperationsPriority we find the following: > A 'badValue(3)' should be returned when a user tries to set 0 or 255 for this object. Actually 'badValue' is an SNMP specific error and protocol-specific statements should be avoided in the MIB modules - at most used as examples. I suggest replacing with something like: > Setting the values of the vrrpv3OperationsPriority object at 0 or 255 should be rejected by the agents implementing this MIB module. For example an SNMP agent would return 'badValue(3)' when a user tries to set the values 0 or 255 for this object. 2. I find the description of the vulnerabilities of the writeable objects in the Security Considerations section as insufficient. Please describe what are the effects settings of the vrrpv3OperationsPriority, vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr, vrrpv3OperationsAdvInterval, vrrpv3OperationsPreemptMode, vrrpv3OperationsAcceptMode objects at the wrong values, or of creating or deleting rows using vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrRowStatus. |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] Section 7 (Interpretation of RFC5798) as written does not provide enough information to let readers who were not involved in the conversation … [Ballot comment] Section 7 (Interpretation of RFC5798) as written does not provide enough information to let readers who were not involved in the conversation know what the disagreement actually was - they can only guess. As written, it's hard to know whether or not this is updating/profiling RFC5798. Is it the case that this assumption was chosen because it is the "safest" (in the sense of providing a useful MIB in as many circumstances as possible)? If so, characterizing the choice that way would be clearer. Either way, could the document capture why this work won't have to be revisited if the disagreement is ultimately resolved with a different interpretation? |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup. |
2011-10-01
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-30
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-29
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-26
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2011-09-26
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2011-09-26
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-09-26
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-10-06 |
2011-09-08
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New ID Needed |
2011-09-08
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10.txt |
2011-05-11
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-05-11
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-05-10
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there is a single IANA Action that must be completed. In the Network Management Parameters Registry located … IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there is a single IANA Action that must be completed. In the Network Management Parameters Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers IANA will assign a new SMI number for vrrpv3MIB is the prefix iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 as follows: Decimal: tba Name: vrrpv3MIB Description: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol v3 MIB Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of this document. |
2011-04-30
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk |
2011-04-30
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Definitions of Managed Objects for VRRPv3) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol WG (vrrp) to consider the following document: - 'Definitions of Managed Objects for VRRPv3' as a 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 2011-05-11. 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib/ |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call text changed |
2011-04-27
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-04-27
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-04-27
|
10 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-04-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call text changed |
2011-04-26
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New ID Needed |
2011-04-26
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.txt |
2011-01-08
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation. |
2011-01-08
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | AD Review ======== Hi, Don't panic! I have performed my AD review of your draft. The purpose of the review is to catch any nits … AD Review ======== Hi, Don't panic! I have performed my AD review of your draft. The purpose of the review is to catch any nits or issues before the document goes forward to IETF last call and IESG review. By getting these issues out at this stage we can hope for a higher quality review and a smoother passage through the process. There are a good number of small issues that I believe can be fixed really easily. I appreciate that a number of these issues are inherrited from RFC 2787, but this is an ideal chance to clean up. You will need a new revision to address these points, and I'd ask the WG chairs to evaluate whether the changes are large enough to warrant a further WG last call. I have moved the draft into "AD-review:Revised-ID-needed" state in the datatracker, and I look forward to seeing the new revision which I can put forward for IETF last call. Thanks for all your work with this draft, Adrian --- Document header OLD Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt July 2010 Intended Status: Proposed Standard NEW Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt July 2010 Obsoletes: 2787 (if approved) Intended Status: Proposed Standard END --- Abstract OLD This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for NEW This specification defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for END --- Section 2 OLD This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for NEW This specification defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for END --- Section 2 etc. Is it necessary to introduce the term "IPvX"? It is only used a couple of times, and the time it is used in the MIB module is a problem because the definition of the term is outside the module. (Typically, MIB modules are extracted from RFCs and have to survive as standalone text.) Can you: - remove "(IPvX)" form section 2 - remove the definition for section 3 - say "IPv4 and IPv6" in the two uses in section 6 and section 9 --- Section 4 You need to add text to describe what has changed from 2787. Not a lot of details - perhaps a series of bullet points. -- Section 6 etc. You need to say "MIB module" not "MIB" because there is only one MIB, and you are making just a module in the MIB. s/This MIB is designed/This MIB module is designed/ --- Section 7 Tables in the MIB include the following: In fact, there are exactly these three tables, so how about... This MIB module contains three tables: --- Section 8 Trivial, but... ----- MIB Tables For VRRP Router "VR 1": ----- ...should read "VR1" Similarly for VR2 later in the section. --- IMPORTS It is helpful, but mandatory, to show the RFC numbers from which things are imported. Thus... OLD IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION-TYPE, Counter32, Integer32, mib-2, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus, MacAddress, TruthValue, TimeStamp, TimeInterval FROM SNMPv2-TC MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP, NOTIFICATION-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF ifIndex FROM IF-MIB InetAddressType, InetAddress FROM INET-ADDRESS-MIB; NEW IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION-TYPE, Counter32, Integer32, mib-2, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus, MacAddress, TruthValue, TimeStamp, TimeInterval FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP, NOTIFICATION-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC2580 ifIndex FROM IF-MIB -- RFC2863 InetAddressType, InetAddress FROM INET-ADDRESS-MIB; -- RFC3291 END --- Section 9 In order to ensure that references can be provided, it is customary to begin Section 9 (i.e. before the module BEGIN statement) with some text such as: This MIB module makes reference to the following documents [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580], [RFC2863], [RFC3291], and [RFC4001]. --- Vrrpv3VrIdTC Typos (ifIndex)and IP version, serves to uniquely identify a Missing space. REFERENCE " RFC 5798 (Sections 3 and 5.2.3" Missing close brace. --- vrrpv3OperationsTable "Unified Operations table for a VRRP router which consists of a sequence (i.e., one or more conceptual rows) of 'vrrpv3OperationsEntry' items which describe the operational characteristics of a virtual router." I think "which describe" should read "each of which describes" --- vrrpv3OperationsEntry Rows in the table cannot be modified unless the value of 'vrrpv3OperStatus' has transitioned to 'initialize' state. I think a little more precision would help... A rows in this table cannot be modified unless the value of 'vrrpv3OperStatus' in the row has transitioned to 'initialize' state. --- vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType As far as I can tell, you only support two values: ipv4(1) and ipv6(2). Other values of the InetAddressType textual conventions are, I think, not supported. You should add this fact as a note to the DESCRIPTION clause. --- vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr "In the case where there are more than one IP s/are/is/ --- vrrpv3OperationsVirtualMacAddr REFERENCE "STD 58 RFC 2578" I am not clear why this reference is cited. MacAddress is defined in RFC 2579, but you don't need to provide a reference because that is implicit in the IMPORTS clause. Perhaps you mean to give a reference to where the mapping from VRID to MAC address is defined? --- vrpv3OperStatus This object is incongruously named. To fit with the naming convention for the table you need one of: - vrpv3OperationsStatus - vrpv3OperationsOperStatus Note that there are many references to this object throughout the document. --- vrrpv3OperationsAcceptMode "Controls whether a virtual router in Master state will accept packets addressed to the address owner's IPv6 address as its own if it is not the IPv6 address owner. Default is False. This object is not relevant for rows representing VRRP over IPv4 and should be set to false." Should read... Default is false(2) ...and... should be set to false(2)." --- vrrpv3OperationsUpTime SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This is the value of the `sysUpTime' object when this virtual router (i.e., the `vrrpv3OperStatus') transitioned out of `initialized'." I am not saying that you MUST change this, but I wonder how useful it is, because to make sense of it, a management station must also read the current value of sysUpTime. An alternative is to supply the up time in timer ticks. That means that the management agent has to perform a computation each the row is read. If you did this you would have... SYNTAX TimeTicks MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This value represents the amount of time since this virtual router (i.e., the `vrrpv3OperStatus') transitioned out of `initialize'." I just need you to think about which you prefer (there is a trade-off) and make a decision. No need to tell me which you chose, or why. Note also s/initialized/initialize/ --- Creation and deletion of a vrrpv3OperationsTable row I'm slightly confused :-( We have... vrrpv3OperationsEntry Rows in the table cannot be modified unless the value of 'vrrpv3OperStatus' has transitioned to 'initialize' state. and vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus When `vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus' is set to active(1), no other objects in the conceptual row can be modified. In general, the instructions in the description of the rowStatus are good an detailed. But I have some difficulty with row creation. What I think is missing is a statement that the row must be created with operStatus set to initialize(1) and cannot transition to backup(2) or master(3) until rowStatus is transitioned to active(1). Similarly, there is an issue with row deletion. In order to delete, the row I must first set rowStatus to notInService(2), and later to delete(6). But, according to the description of operStatus, I cannot modify the row (including the rowStatus) until operStatus has gone to initialize(1). How to I get that to happen? I suspect this can be fixed by allowing rowStatus to be changed regardless of the value of operStatus. --- vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrTable "The table of addresses associated with this virtual router." I think that there is just one table, and it contains the addresses of all virtual routers. What about... "The table of addresses associated with each virtual router." --- vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrEntry OLD Rows in the table cannot be modified unless the value of `vrrpv3OperStatus' has transitioned to `initialize'. NEW Rows in the table cannot be modified unless the value of `vrrpv3OperStatus' for the corresponding entry in the vrrpv3OperationsTable has transitioned to initialize(1). END --- vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddr This object's name is odd given the convention for naming objects within their tables. You probably need: vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddrAddress --- vrrpv3AssociatedIpAddr You should add a statement the description that says that the content of the object is to be interpreted in the context of the setting of vrrpv3OperationsInetAddrType in the index of this row. --- VRRP Router Statistics Do you need a discontinuity timer for the three global objects: - vrrpv3RouterChecksumErrors - vrrpv3RouterVersionErrors - vrrpv3RouterVrIdErrors --- VRRP Router Statistics In the presence of an attack or a broken router or host nearby, is it possible that Countr32 will not be large enough for the up-time of this router? You can choose to use Counter64 or describe wrapping conditions. --- vrrpv3RouterVrIdErrors "The total number of VRRP packets received with an invalid VRID for this virtual router." This object is global, so it is wider than the scope of a single VR. I think you need: "The total number of VRRP packets received with a VRID that is not valid for any virtual router on this router." --- vrrpv3StatisticsAdvIntervalErrors "The total number of VRRP advertisement packets received for which the advertisement interval is different than the one configured for the local virtual router. Can you add a reference to vrrpv3OperationsAdvInterval --- vrrpv3ProtoError Don't you think this is a *really* dangerous notification? If a VR is under attack or receiving packets from a faulty speaker, it will spew notificaitons. You should probably either add some thresholding objects (which is a fair bit of work) or a single object to turn notifications on and off (with the default being "off"). --- Notifications As currently specified, both of the notifications will come from the management agent which will identify the physical router that sourced the notification, but not the VR. Don't you need to add some index values to the notifications as well? --- Section 11 Since you are obsoleting RFC 2787, is it your intention to ask IANA to deprecate {mib-2 68} ? --- Would you please consider adding --- Section 12 A reference to RFC 4001 needs to be added as it shows up in some REFERENCE clauses. --- Would you please consider adding a short section on migrating from VRRP-MIB to VRRPV3-MIB? |
2011-01-08
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-01-08
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
2011-01-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching. |
2011-01-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Radia Perlman Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Radia Perlman 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? Yes (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Yes Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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? No (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? No 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? No, and I believe, not applicable If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Solid 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? Strong concurrence (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No 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.) (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? Yes. However there is a warning that the copyright year does not match the current year, since it is now 2011. (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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. (and MIB doctor was Joan Cucchiara ) (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? No 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]. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? Yes If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? N/A 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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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? (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? Yes (MIB doctor verified this) (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for VRRP Version 3 (which simultaneously supports both IPv4 and IPv6) as defined in RFC 5798 Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? No For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? no Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Huawei has implemented it, and there may be others. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Not to my knowledge, but that does not mean "no". Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Media Type review not applicable. MIB doctor review by Joan Cucchiara was very helpful, as was earlier review by Dave Thaler. |
2011-01-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Radia Perlman (radiaperlman@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
2010-07-12
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt |
2010-06-06
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Adrian Farrel from David Ward |
2010-06-06
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Adrian Farrel |
2010-02-03
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-07.txt |
2008-10-28
|
10 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching::Revised ID Needed by system |
2008-10-28
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2008-10-27
|
10 | David Ward | State Changes to AD is watching::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by David Ward |
2007-03-23
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Responsible AD has been changed to David Ward from Bill Fenner |
2007-01-29
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
2007-01-29
|
10 | Bill Fenner | From: "Joan Cucchiara" Subject: Re: [VRRP] status of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06.txt Date: Sun, Jan 14 15:00:07 To: "Carl Kalbfleisch" , Hi Carl, Thanks for pointing out that … From: "Joan Cucchiara" Subject: Re: [VRRP] status of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06.txt Date: Sun, Jan 14 15:00:07 To: "Carl Kalbfleisch" , Hi Carl, Thanks for pointing out that there is now a version 6. I didn't see the announcement. I did a MIB Dr. review of version 5, so will take a look at version 6 also. |
2006-12-15
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-12-15
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06.txt |
2006-07-12
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Expert Review by Bill Fenner |
2006-07-12
|
10 | Bill Fenner | MIB Dr. Review posted to VRRP WG list, discussing with author. |
2006-07-12
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Change Notice email list have been change to vrrp-chairs@tools.ietf.org from radia.perlman@sun.com, mukesh.gupta@troposnetworks.com |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Requested MIB Dr. Review. The -05 revision was produced based on my RFC4181 review so hopefully the MIB Dr. review will be uneventful. |
2006-05-19
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-05-19
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt |
2006-02-11
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
2006-02-11
|
10 | Bill Fenner | From: fenner@research.att.com Subject: [VRRP] AD Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib Date: February 10, 2006 5:05:15 PM PST I've performed my AD Review of the unified MIB, with … From: fenner@research.att.com Subject: [VRRP] AD Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib Date: February 10, 2006 5:05:15 PM PST I've performed my AD Review of the unified MIB, with a copy of RFC 4181 open and my MIB hat on. (Don't ask to see it, I have to close the door to my office when I am wearing it.) Here are my comments. Despite the number of comments, I think each one is reasonably easy to resolve. I'm happy to discuss any point, or to learn that there's information that I didn't consider (e.g., compatability issues, etc.) in my suggestions. Thanks, Bill MIB: 1. The REVISION clause from RFC 2338 needs to be retained. The more recent REVISION clause should be last and should describe the changes. 2. Every deprecated object needs an explanation in the DESCRIPTION saying why it's deprecated (RFC 2578, section 10.2 (3)). Text like "This object is deprecated in favor of the IP Version Independent object, vrrpFoobarObject" seems appropriate. Similarly for the deprecated Groups. 3. The DESCRIPTION for vrrpOperationsMasterIpAddr seems to have had an editing error (I realize that it's copied from vrrpOperMasterIpAddr). The current wording implies that it could be set to the source of a packet from a backup. The DESCRIPTION also doesn't say that it's set to my address when I'm the master, but I think that's what happens. 4. In the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable, I think that we should delete the vrrpAssociatedInetAddrType and replace it in the INDEX with vrrpOperationsInetAddrType. (RFC 4181, section 4.6.4; vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable is an "expansion table") 5. The DESCRIPTION of vrrpAssociatedIpAddrRowStatus says that setting it to createAndGo(4) results in administratively bringing down the row. That's an interesting implication of createAndGo ;-) Did you mean notInService(2)? 6. The relationship between vrrpOperationsTable and vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable seems complex when creating rows. I think one sensible order of operations is: 1. Create a row in vrrpOperationsTable with createAndWait(5). 2. Create one or more corresponding rows in vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable 3. set vrrpOperationsRowStatus to active(1). Is this what's intended? 7. Nothing says what happens when you delete all the rows from the vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable that correspond to a given row in the vrrpOperationsTable. My guess is that vrrpAssociatedIpAddrRowStatus should say that you cannot delete the only row associated with an active row in the vrrpOperationsTable. 8. vrrpAssociatedIpAddrTable and vrrpOperationsTable need either a) to specify in the Entry DESCRIPTION what happens to dynamically created rows after an agent restart, or b) to gain a StorageType column (RFC4181 section 4.6.4) 9. vrrpAssociatedIpAddrRowStatus needs to say whether or not you can modify the values when it's active(1). (RFC 4181 section 4.6.4) 10. Please go through and add REFERENCE clauses where possible, so that it's easy for an implementor to find the section of the spec that applies to a given object. (RFC 4181, section 4.6.2) 11. From the text, of the DESCRIPTION, it's hard to tell the difference between vrrpMIBCompliance2 and vrrpMIBReadOnlyCompliance. See, for example, diffServMIBReadOnlyCompliance in RFC3289 for a more complete DESCRIPTION. 12. In the security considerations, I think the vrrpOperationsIpAddrTable also needs to be listed with read-create. Since you don't permit changing any columns while a row is active, it's true that the RowStatus column is the only one that needs to be listed, but it might be nice to say something like "While there are other columns that, if changed, could disrupt operations, they can not be changed without first changing the RowStatus object". (Also, you say "RowState" and not "RowStatus" when referring to the column.) Formatting: 1. Needs the description of The Internet-Standard Management Framework from http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html 2. Title of section 3 should probably be "Relationship to RFC 2787" 3. Should the introduction to the scenario in section 8 include something saying that A, B and C are IPv4 addresses and X, Y and Z are IPv6? 4. Is it feasible to the deprecated objects to the end (or, rather, middle, just before the groups) to make it more readable for someone who wants to come and see the current stuff? 5. The comment above vrrpTrapAuthFailure refers to it as vrrpAuthFailureTrap. |
2005-11-28
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner |
2005-11-28
|
10 | Bill Fenner | I'll try to move this one forward. |
2005-11-28
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Shepherding AD has been changed to Bill Fenner from Alex Zinin |
2005-10-06
|
10 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2005-09-29
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-04.txt |
2005-05-17
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-03.txt |
2005-01-12
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-02.txt |
2004-06-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-01.txt |
2003-10-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-00.txt |