Entity MIB (Version 4)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, eman mailing list <email@example.com>, eman chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Entity MIB (Version 4)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Entity MIB (Version 4)' (draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Energy Management Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Benoit Claise and Ronald Bonica. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis/
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 used for managing multiple logical and physical entities managed by a single SNMP agent. This document specifies a new version of the Entity MIB, which obsoletes version 3 [RFC4133]. Working Group Summary EMAN's meeting at IETF 83 (Paris) identified the need for this as a generic way to manage objects using a list of URIs. Mouli Chandramouli produced the -01 version in time for IETF 84, with co-editors Andy Bierman, Dan Romascanu and Juergen Quittek. The WG decided that this would provide a sensible base for the EMAN MIBs. Since then it has been discussed on the EMAN list; its WG Last Call was of its -03 version, from 11 to 29 October. The latest revision addresses concerns arising from the WGLC, the editors consider that it's now ready to publish. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? It obsoletes RFC 4133, Entity MIB v3. Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Don't know. 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? Juergen Schoenwalder was particularly helpful as a reviewer at WGLC though the changes srising were minor. If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? Two of the draft's editors are on the MIB Doctors list, so is Juergen Schoenwalder. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee Area Director: Benoit Claise RFC Editor Note OLD: Their mis-configuration or disclosure may reveal sensitive information on assets or perturb the management of entities. NEW: Their mis-configuration or disclosure may reveal sensitive information on assets or perturb the management of entities, or could cause privacy issues if they allow tracking of values that are personally identifying. OLD: These objects expose information about the physical entities within a managed system, which may be used to identify the vendor, model, and version information of each system component. NEW: These objects expose information about the physical entities within a managed system, which may be used to identify the vendor, model, version and specific device identification information of each system component.