IP Multicast MIB
RFC 5132

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Suresh Krishnan, and confirmed by IANA.

  An update to the IANA considerations is needed.

  OLD:

    Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
    assignments in the "RSVP TE Parameters - per [RFC4420]" registry

  NEW:

    Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
    assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS" registry

IANA's Last Call comments included a typo. Upon approval of this document, IANA will make assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS" registry, not in the "RSVP TE Parameters - per [RFC4420]" registry.

IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the
"RSVP TE Parameters - per [RFC4420]" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

sub-registry "Prefix:
    iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"

TDB ipMcastMIB IP-Multicast-MIB [RFC-mboned-ip-mcast-mib-06]


We understand the above to be the only IANA
Action for this document.

PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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?

Marshall Eubanks is the Document Shepherd. I have reviewed the last 3 versions of this
document and think it is ready for forwarding to the IESG.


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?


Yes, the document has been reviewed by key members of the Mboned WG, both before
and after its adoption by the WG. WG Comments were received and then incorporated into subsequent versions. It has also received a detailed review by Keith McCloghrie a MIB guru.


(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? 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? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.


(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?


There is a solid WG consensus behind this document; it is long overdue.


(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?


We have had some review by MIB doctors but I believe that the IESG will
request a formal review by another MIB doctor.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
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].


Yes, references are split. The normative referenced are all in a clear
state (11 RFCs, plus one individual submission in IESG last call).
There are normative downward references, but these are to well-known
BCPs, listed below. All other normative references are to standards
track drafts/RFCs.


[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
RFC 2365, July 1998.

[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? 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 [RFC2434]. 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?


There is an IANA consideration section. It calls for an addition to the IP-MCAST-MIB module. It does not create a new registry.


(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?


The Shepherd understands that Keith McCloghrie and Bill Fenner have validated the MIB.


(1.k) 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
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.

This MIB describes general objects used for managing IP multicast function, including IP multicast routing; objects specific to particular multicast protocols are defined elsewhere.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

There was strong support in the MBONED WG for the adoption of this document. There was a general consensus that this MIB addition was overdue.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? 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?

This document is largely based on RFC2932 and will make it obsolete.

There are many implementations of RFC2932 and there are
implementations of earlier versions of this draft. Cisco Systems has implemented an earlier version of this draft and Data Connection Ltd has implemented a version of this draft.

This MIB has been reviewed by Keith McCloghrie a MIB guru.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? Is an IANA expert needed?

Marshall Eubanks is the document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Area Director. An IANA expert is not required but a final review by a MIB doctor is expected.

(end)