The IPv6-Specific MIB Modules Are Obsolete
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-02

[Ballot comment]
See the OPS DIR email thread, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg02108.html, for a potential additional edit, stressing the IPv6 MIB modules special case. Indeed, this procedure might not apply to obsolete all MIB modules.

Regards, Benoit

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes subregistry of the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at:

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

the following six changes are to be made:

1] for value decimal 5, the entry for "icmp" RFC1213 will be removed from the references
2] for value decimal 6, the entry for "tcp" will have the reference changed to RFC4022
3] for value decimal 7, the entry for "udp" RFC1213 will be removed from the references
4] for value decimal 49, the entry for "tcpMIB" RFC2012 will be removed from the references
5] for value decimal 55, the entry for "ipv6MIB" will have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ] and the entry will be marked (Historic)
6] for value decimal 56, the entry for "ipv6IcmpMIB" will have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ] and the entry will be marked (Historic)

Second, in the SMI Experimental Codes subregistry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry located at:

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

the following four changes are to be made:

1] fpr value decimal 74, the entry for "IPv6 MIB" will be marked (Historic)
2] for value decimal 87, the entry for "ipv6UdpMIB" will have the notation (Historical) changed to (Historic)
3] for value decimal 86, the entry for "ipv6TcpMIB" will have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]
4] for value decimal 87, the entry for "ipv6UdpMIB" will have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Ole Troan" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, otroan@employees.org, draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Republishing the IPV6-specific MIB modules as obsolete) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Republishing the IPV6-specific MIB modules as obsolete'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In 2005, the IPv6 MIB update group published updated versions of the
  IP-MIB, UDP-MIB, TCP-MIB and IP-FORWARD-MIB modules, which use the
  InetAddressType/InetAddress construct to handle IPv4 and IPv6 in the
  same table.  This document contains versions of the obsoleted
  IPV6-MIB, IPV6-TC, IPV6-ICMP-MIB, IPV6-TCP-MIB and IPV6-UDP-MIB
  modules, for the purpose of updating MIB module repositories.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Informational. The type is indicated in the title page header.

(2) 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

  In 2005, the IPv6 MIB update group published updated versions of the
  IP-MIB [RFC4293], UDP-MIB [RFC4113], TCP-MIB [RFC4022] and IP-
  FORWARD-MIB [RFC4292] modules, which use the InetAddressType/
  InetAddress construct to handle IPv4 and IPv6 in the same table.
  These documents were marked in the RFC Index as obsoleting the
  corresponding IPV6-MIBs, but the extracted content of these MIBs
  never changed in MIB repositories, and the original RFCs (as is
  normal IETF policy) never changed from being Proposed Standard.

  This causes an unclear situation when simply looking at MIB
  repositories, so we are simply republishing these MIB modules with
  the SMI syntax changed to obsolete.

The document updates RFC2452, RFC2454, RFC2465, RFC2466.

Working Group Summary

  The document has the support of the WG. There is no points with
  controversy and/or rough consensus.

Document Quality

  This document has been reviewed by C.M. Heard in addition to the chairs.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Ole Troan (otroan@employees.org) is the document Shepherd.
  Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The shepherd has done a review of the -01 version of the document
  and found it ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No further review neeed.
The document has been reviewed by CM Heard (former MIB doctor).

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. The author has indicated he has no knowledge of IPRs on this
  document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(9) 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? 

  Given the nature of the document, not many people have been
  involved with it. It is not controversial and it is believed
  the whole WG understands and agrees with it.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No IDnits found that should be corrected.

- The lines greater than 72 characters are copied from the old documents; I
  hope that they can be an exception.  We had basically agreed on the concept
  that this should not be a process where I re-format the original content.

- Mentioning the old RFC numbers in Abstract could be added, but it is very
- clear from the rest of the document and the header.

- The weird spacing is copied from the original documents, so I hope it can
- be forgiven.

- The disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work is appropriate.

- The things that look like references but probably aren't are just idnits
- noise.

- The references to documents that are already marked as obsolete are
- intentional.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

A complete review from a MIB doctor is not worth the time for this
document. This document does not "criticize" the existing MIB modules
designs.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  None.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document reclassifies RFC2452, RFC2454, RFC2465, RFC2466 as historic.
  That's the only thing the document does and it is clear throughout the document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The updates to the IANA registry is clear and consistent with the body of
  the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  Not applicable. There are no IANA registry in this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  The document reviewer (a former MIB doctor) performed the following
  validation:
  "I went ahead and and extracted the the updated modules from
  draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-00.txt and ran the tool smidiff (part of
  the libsmi suite) to check what had changed between the modules in the
  libsmi archive and the updated modules (note: the libsmi distribution,
  which includes smidiff and the extracted MIB modules, is available for
  download at http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/)."