Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0
RFC 2613
Revision differences
Document history
Date | By | Action |
---|---|---|
2011-06-06
|
Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2011-06-06
|
Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list have been change to from ietf@andybierman.com; dromasca@avaya.com; |
2006-03-29
|
Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-03-29
|
Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-03-17
|
(System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 |
2006-03-16
|
Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-14
|
Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'IETF Last Call ended on March 9th' added by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-14
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-09
|
(System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2006-03-08
|
Bert Wijnen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-08
|
Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'IETF Last Call ends on March 9th' added by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-08
|
Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2006-03-08 from 2006-02-23 |
2006-02-23
|
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
|
Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2006-02-23
|
Bert Wijnen | Note field has been cleared by Bert Wijnen |
2006-02-23
|
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
|
Bert Wijnen | State Change Notice email list have been change to ietf@andybierman.com; dromascanu@avaya.com; from |
2006-02-23
|
Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2006-02-23 from 2003-06-05 |
2006-02-23
|
Bert Wijnen | Last Call was requested by Bert Wijnen |
2006-02-23
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for Writeup::External Party by Bert Wijnen |
2003-06-05
|
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 … |
2003-06-05
|
Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-06-05 from 2003-06-02 |
2003-06-05
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup :: External Party from Waiting for Writeup by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-06-02
|
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
|
Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-06-02 from 2003-04-24 |
2003-06-02
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-06-02
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-04-10
|
Jacqueline Hargest | Status date has been changed to 2003-04-24 from 2003-04-09 |
2003-04-10
|
Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Hargest, Jacqueline |
2003-04-09
|
Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-04-09 from 2003-02-27 |
2003-04-09
|
Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-02-27
|
Stephen Coya | Draft Added by Coya, Steve |
1999-06-01
|
(System) | RFC published |