Skip to main content

Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0
RFC 2613

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Scott Hollenbeck
2011-06-06
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2011-06-06
07 Cindy Morgan State Change Notice email list have been change to from ietf@andybierman.com; dromasca@avaya.com;
2006-03-29
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-03-29
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-03-29
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-03-17
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16
2006-03-16
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-03-16
07 (System) [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by IESG Secretary
2006-03-16
07 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-16
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2006-03-16
07 Bert Wijnen
[Ballot comment]
To answer Allison:
That would me we have to open up editing of RFC2613.
And the immediate result would be a quite …
[Ballot comment]
To answer Allison:
That would me we have to open up editing of RFC2613.
And the immediate result would be a quite sizeable effort
to live up to all the lastest boilerplate, admin, IPR,
split-in-references, etc etc type of bureaucratic work.

The WG did consider that option and concluded against it.

So my solution is: advance in grade AS IS.
2006-03-16
07 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-03-16
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2006-03-16
07 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2006-03-16
07 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Allison Mankin
2006-03-16
07 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
This can be settled by Bert/Dan to their own satisfaction; it
does not have to come back to me:

Could a Note to …
[Ballot comment]
This can be settled by Bert/Dan to their own satisfaction; it
does not have to come back to me:

Could a Note to the RFC Editor specify that a risk in this
MIB includes not just obtaining sensitive control information but
actually controlling the port copy settings.  This means opportunities
for eavesdropping and hijacking.  We expect MIB Security Considerations
to describe more of the risks now than they did in 1999.
2006-03-16
07 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2006-03-16
07 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2006-03-15
07 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2006-03-15
07 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2006-03-14
07 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2006-03-14
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2006-03-14
07 Scott Hollenbeck
[Ballot comment]
There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response:

entPhysicalEntry.                …
[Ballot comment]
There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response:

entPhysicalEntry.                | x |  |  |  |
N:1                                  |  |  | x |  |
N:M                                  |  |  | x |  |

Apparently these are optional features that don't have an impact on interoperability.
2006-03-14
07 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Scott Hollenbeck
2006-03-14
07 Bert Wijnen [Note]: 'IETF Last Call ended on March 9th' added by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-14
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-13
07 Scott Hollenbeck
[Ballot discuss]
There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response:

entPhysicalEntry.                …
[Ballot discuss]
There are a few entries in the implementation report that list only one vendor's response:

entPhysicalEntry.                  | x |  |  |  |
N:1                                  |  |  | x |  |
N:M                                  |  |  | x |  |

Are these anything to worry about?
2006-03-13
07 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2006-03-09
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen Created "Approve" ballot
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen [Note]: 'IETF Last Call ends on March 9th' added by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
07 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2006-03-08 from 2006-02-23
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen State Change Notice email list have been change to ietf@andybierman.com; dromasca@avaya.com; from ietf@andybierman.com; dromascanu@avaya.com;
2006-02-23
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen Note field has been cleared by Bert Wijnen
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen
Advancement request for RFC 2613
WG Chair: Andy Bierman
Doc Shep: Andy Bierman

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

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the …
Advancement request for RFC 2613
WG Chair: Andy Bierman
Doc Shep: Andy Bierman

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

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

  A: Yes.  This document is ready for advancement to DS.
      An implementation report is on file with the IESG:
   
      http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC2613-Implementation.txt

  1.b) 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?
 
  A: The document has been fully reviewed.

  1.c) 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.)?

  A: There are no concerns regarding further review.

  1.d) 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 have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

  A: There are no further issues that the IESG should be aware of.

  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?
 
  A: The is strong WG consensus for this document.

  1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

  A: There have been no appeals threatened or objections raised
      to advancing this document from PS to DS.

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

  A: No. RFC 2613 does not adhere to current ID nits.

  1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that 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: No, the document is not split into normative and informative
      references.  This document is waiting for RFC 2021 to advance
      from PS to DS.  There are no other pending dependencies.

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

        *    Technical Summary

  This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.
  In particular, it defines objects for managing remote network
  monitoring devices in switched networks environments.

        *    Working Group Summary

  The RMONMIB WG has consensus to publish this document as a
  Draft Standard.

        *    Protocol Quality
   
    This document has been reviewed by the RMONMIB WG and implemented
    by several vendors in network switching equipment.
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen State Change Notice email list have been change to ietf@andybierman.com; dromascanu@avaya.com; from
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2006-02-23 from 2003-06-05
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen Last Call was requested by Bert Wijnen
2006-02-23
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for Writeup::External Party by Bert Wijnen
2003-06-05
07 Bert Wijnen
Indeed thsi one depends on RFC2021 to also advance to DS and 2021 needs a new revision to address some minor issues. So this doc …
Indeed thsi one depends on RFC2021 to also advance to DS and 2021 needs a new revision to address some minor issues. So this doc is wait on external party to get RFC2021 revision done and delivered
2003-06-05
07 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2003-06-05 from 2003-06-02
2003-06-05
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to Waiting for Writeup  :: External Party from Waiting for Writeup by Wijnen, Bert
2003-06-02
07 Bert Wijnen
Last Call revealed that doc depends on RFC2021 to also advance to DS. And that one seems to need an update before it can do …
Last Call revealed that doc depends on RFC2021 to also advance to DS. And that one seems to need an update before it can do so. Checking with WG chair
2003-06-02
07 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2003-06-02 from 2003-04-24
2003-06-02
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by Wijnen, Bert
2003-06-02
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Wijnen, Bert
2003-04-10
07 Jacqueline Hargest Status date has been changed to 2003-04-24 from 2003-04-09
2003-04-10
07 Jacqueline Hargest State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Hargest, Jacqueline
2003-04-09
07 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2003-04-09 from 2003-02-27
2003-04-09
07 Bert Wijnen State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Wijnen, Bert
2003-02-27
07 Stephen Coya Draft Added by Coya, Steve
1999-06-01
07 (System) RFC published
1999-04-08
07 (System) IESG has approved the document
1999-03-01
07 (System) Last call sent
1999-02-28
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
1999-02-28
07 (System) Last call text was added
1999-02-28
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
1999-02-17
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-07.txt
1998-12-16
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-06.txt
1998-11-04
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-05.txt
1998-04-10
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-04.txt
1997-09-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-03.txt
1997-07-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-smon-01.txt