Ethernet Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base (MIB)
RFC 5603

[Ballot comment]
Part of the comments are based on the MIB Doctor review performed by Orly Niklass.

1)

Old:

interfaces that are later associated tp PWs is not handled via this MIB module.                         

NEW:

interfaces that are later associated to PWs is not handled via this MIB module.

Change tp/to  but maybe the word with is better here.

2)

OLD:

entries. If the set of entires of a specific
                                                                    ^

NEW:

entries. If the set of entries of a specific

Change entires/ entries


3)

OLD:

"glues" the standard modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

NEW:

"glues" the standard native version modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

add 'native version'

4)

OLD:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB framework is the PW MIB module

Change for consistency to

NEW:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB structure is the PW MIB module


5)


There is

    ---
    --- Conformance description
    ---

    pwEnetGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 1 }
    pwEnetCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 2 }





Normally (as listed in RFC4181) we order then with
    Compliances first and then Groups.

      xxxMIB
      |
      +-- xxxNotifications(0)
      +-- xxxObjects(1)
      +-- xxxConformance(2)
          |
          +-- xxxCompliances(1)
          +-- xxxGroups(2)

6)

In the Security Considerations section:

  o  the pwEnetTable contains objects to provision Ethernet PWs.
      Unauthorized access to objects in these tables, could result in
      disruption of traffic on the network.  The use of stronger
      mechanisms such as SNMPv3 security should be considered where
      possible.  Specifically, SNMPv3 VACM and USM MUST be used with any
      v3 agent which implements this MIB module.  Administrators should
      consider whether read access to these objects should be allowed,
      since read access may be undesirable under certain circumstances.

Two problems here:
- the security threat resulting from intentionalor unintentional mis-configuration of the obects in the pwEnetTable should be explicitly stated, as the consequences may be partial or total loss of service for customers connected through the PW which i smore than just disruption of traffic.
- The should in the second phrase SHOULD be capitalized

[Ballot comment]
Part of the comments are based on the MIB Doctor review performed by Orly Niklass.

1)

Old:

interfaces that are later associated tp PWs is not handled via this MIB module.                         

NEW:

interfaces that are later associated to PWs is not handled via this MIB module.

Change tp/to  but maybe the word with is better here.

2)

OLD:

entries. If the set of entires of a specific
                                                                    ^

NEW:

entries. If the set of entries of a specific

Change entires/ entries


3)

OLD:

"glues" the standard modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

NEW:

"glues" the standard native version modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

add 'native version'

4)

OLD:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB framework is the PW MIB module

Change for consistency to

NEW:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB structure is the PW MIB module


5)


There is

    ---
    --- Conformance description
    ---

    pwEnetGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 1 }
    pwEnetCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 2 }





Normally (as listed in RFC4181) we order then with
    Compliances first and then Groups.

      xxxMIB
      |
      +-- xxxNotifications(0)
      +-- xxxObjects(1)
      +-- xxxConformance(2)
          |
          +-- xxxCompliances(1)
          +-- xxxGroups(2)

6)

In the Security Considerations section:

  o  the pwEnetTable contains objects to provision Ethernet PWs.
      Unauthorized access to objects in these tables, could result in
      disruption of traffic on the network.  The use of stronger
      mechanisms such as SNMPv3 security should be considered where
      possible.  Specifically, SNMPv3 VACM and USM MUST be used with any
      v3 agent which implements this MIB module.  Administrators should
      consider whether read access to these objects should be allowed,
      since read access may be undesirable under certain circumstances.

Two problems here:
- the security threat resulting from intentionalor unintentional mis-configuration of the obects in the pwEnetTable should be explicitly stated, as the consequences may be partial or total loss of service for customers connected through the PW which i smore than just disruption of traffic.
- The should in hte second phrase SHOULD be capitalized

[Ballot comment]
Part of the comments are based on the MIB Doctor review performed by Orly Niklass.

1)

Old:

interfaces that are later associated tp PWs is not handled via this MIB module.                         

NEW:

interfaces that are later associated to PWs is not handled via this MIB module.

Change tp/to  but maybe the word with is better here.

2)

OLD:

entries. If the set of entires of a specific
                                                                    ^

NEW:

entries. If the set of entries of a specific

Change entires/ entries


3)

OLD:

"glues" the standard modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

NEW:

"glues" the standard native version modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

add 'native version'

4)

OLD:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB framework is the PW MIB module

Change for consistency to

NEW:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB structure is the PW MIB module


5)


There is

    ---
    --- Conformance description
    ---

    pwEnetGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 1 }
    pwEnetCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 2 }





Normally (as listed in RFC4181) we order then with
    Compliances first and then Groups.

      xxxMIB
      |
      +-- xxxNotifications(0)
      +-- xxxObjects(1)
      +-- xxxConformance(2)
          |
          +-- xxxCompliances(1)
          +-- xxxGroups(2)

[Ballot comment]
Please remove the following before publication as an RFC:
  >
  > Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
  > pwe3@ietf.org.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
Sub-registry: "Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)"

Decimal Name Description References
------- ---- ----------- ----------
TDB pwEnetStdMIB PW-Enet-STD-MIB [RFC-pwe3-enet-mib-13]

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

PROTO Statement: draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-13

The PWE3 Chairs would like to request Standards Track publication
of this document.

(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?

Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net) is the Shepherd. I have
reviewed the document and it is ready for publication.

(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?

This document (-11 revision) has been reviewed by the WG, both through
the LC process (ending 2007-06-22), and at IETF WG meetings. There
were no comments during the two week LC that has completed.

I have no concerns about state of readiness of this document.

(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?

I have no concerns regarding the requirement for further review of
this document, although MIB Doctor review needs to occur and a
good bit of coordination has already occurred on that front per
MIB Doctor author participation on this document.

(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.

I have no specific concerns about this document, nor are there
concerns that should be conveyed to the IESG or Responsible AD.

(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?

This document is fully understood and supported by the PWE3
WG. There is no contention as to whether this work provides utility
and it is generally supported across the WG.

(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 one has indicated to the WG chairs or WG mailing list that they
have intentions of appealing any proposed publication of this
document.

(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?

No. MIB Doctor review has been initiated, although not yet
complete. There has been involvement of MIB Doctor folks
with this document already.

(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? 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].

No. Normative references to PWMIB and PWTC are only comments,
with both documents currently in the IESG Processing queue.


(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 suggested a
reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. 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?

The IANA Consideration Section of the document provides the
following IANA and RFC Editor Guidance, which we believe to
be straight-forward and reasonable:

---
The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
---------- -----------------------

pwEnetStdMIB { mib-2 XXXX }

Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and
to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the
assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX"
(here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove
this note.
---

(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?

No, although we have verified this with the authors. We have
also initiated MIB Doctor review on this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling of Ethernet
Pseudowire (PW) services.

Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by the experts in the PWE3 WG
and there are no outstanding issues.

Protocol Quality

This is a very simple and well written, no protocol issues are
anticipated and no outstanding technical issues exist..

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Danny McPherson (danny@tcb.net)

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mark Townsley (townsley@cisco.com)