Skip to main content

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 …
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
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