Enterprise Number for Documentation Use
RFC 5612

[Ballot discuss]
I'm raising Lars' Comment to a Discuss.
Per RFC3330 more information is needed on what is seen on the wire.
Further, I think you should describe the behavior of a system that receives the new Enterprise Number. For example, does it simply treat it as it would any other unknown Enterprise Number (perhaps logging or recoreding), or should it specifically ignore the number?

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following change
in the "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers

OLD:

32473
Example Enterprise Number for Documentation Use
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
iana@iana.org

NEW:

32473
Example Enterprise Number for Documentation Use
See [RFC-eronen-enterprise-number-documentation-01]
iana@iana.org

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

PROTO-shepherd text prepared by Pasi Eronen:

> (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?

There is no document shepherd.The authors believe this version is ready.

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

There has not been very much review (couple of folks in addition to authors), but given that the content is basically one line, that's probably enough.

> (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 such concerns.

> (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 interested community
> has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
> advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No such concerns.

> (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
> this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
> individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
> community as a whole understand and agree with it?

It's probably fair to say the interested community is rather limited; couple of folks have commented that this seems useful, but otherwise, it's been quite silent.

> (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.)

Nobody has indicated discontent.

> (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?

The idnits tool (latest version 2.11.04) reports a warning about an informative reference to an obsoleted RFC. This reference is intentional, since it's to provide historical background.

We have manually gone through the checklist, checking those parts that the tool does not cover.

The draft has two references to IANA web pages (first to the enterprise number registry, second to the application instructions/form). Although having a reference to a web page (which might move some day) is not ideal, we think having these references is more useful than omitting them completely.

No formal review criteria are applicable.

> (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].

The only normative reference is to IANA's Enterprise Number registry.

> (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?

IANA considerations text is in order.

> (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?

Not applicable; no formal language is used.

> (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 document describes an Enterprise Number (also known as SMI
  Network Management Private Enterprise Code) for use in
  documentation.

Working Group Summary

  This is an individual draft, and has not been discussed
  in any working group.

Document Quality

  This Enterprise Number for documentation has been "implemented"
  (i.e. used) in one RFC already.