Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-11

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gau5fsdf6JutMgWnPRn9R_HVto).

## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 3
```
    This document specifies an extensible operational model for IP-TFS.
    It reuses the management model defined in
    [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs].  It allows SNMP systems to read
    operational objects (which includes configured objects) from IPTFS.
```
The document uses IPTFS, IP-TFS, tfs, iptfs, Iptfs - please pick one and use it
consistently.

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", and "SHOULD NOT", but does not contain the
recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar
beginning.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

### URLs

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service:

* https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gau5fsdf6JutMgWnPRn9R_HVto).

## Discuss

### Section 4.2, paragraph 28
```
        l2FixedRate OBJECT-TYPE
            SYNTAX      CounterBasedGauge64
            MAX-ACCESS  read-only
            STATUS      current
            DESCRIPTION
              "TFS bit rate may be specified as a layer 2 wire rate.  On
              transmission, target bandwidth/bit rate in bps for iptfs
              tunnel.  This rate is the nominal timing for the fixed
              size packet. If congestion control is enabled the rate
              may be adjusted down (or up if unset)."
            ::= { iptfsConfigTableEntry 5 }

        l3FixedRate OBJECT-TYPE
            SYNTAX      CounterBasedGauge64
            MAX-ACCESS  read-only
            STATUS      current
            DESCRIPTION
              "TFS bit rate may be specified as a layer 3 packet rate.
              On Transmission, target bandwidth/bit rate in bps for
              iptfs tunnel.  This rate is the nominal timing for the
              fixed size packet. If congestion control is enabled the
              rate may be adjusted down (or up if unset)."
            ::= { iptfsConfigTableEntry 6 }
```
I'm not sure what the intended meaning of the two "or up if unset" statements
is. Even when congestion control is disabled (=unset), the given fixed rates
will not be exceeded?

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3, paragraph 3
```
    This document specifies an extensible operational model for IP-TFS.
    It reuses the management model defined in
    [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs].  It allows SNMP systems to read
    operational objects (which includes configured objects) from IPTFS.
```
The document uses IPTFS, IP-TFS, tfs, iptfs, Iptfs - please pick one and use it
consistently.

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MUST", "MUST NOT", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", and "SHOULD NOT", but does not contain the
recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar
beginning.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

### URLs

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service:

* https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I am balloting a Discuss, so that we pick the correct default value of congestionControl object.

- Section 4.2 says

    congestionControl OBJECT-TYPE
        SYNTAX      TruthValue
        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
        STATUS      current
        DESCRIPTION
          "When set to true, the default, this enables the
          congestion control on-the-wire exchange of data that is
          required by congestion control algorithms as defined by
          RFC 5348.  When set to false, IP-TFS sends fixed-sized
          packets over an IP-TFS tunnel at a constant rate."
        DEFVAL { false }
        ::= { iptfsConfigTableEntry 2 }
 
  While the description says the default value should be true, the DEFVAL mentions "false".

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document. I found it well written and easy to read...

I have a few nits and similar to contribute to (hopefully) make the document even better. Feel free to incorporate them or not, no reply needed...

"Note an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized however the
  structures here could be adapted to existing proprietary MIB
  implementations where SNMP is used to manage networks."
P: "Note that an..."
P: "was never standardized, however..."


"The value for each entry must remain constant at least
from one re-initialization of entity's network management
system to the next re-initialization."
P: "of the entities..." (unless this makes it too long)

"wire rate.  On
transmission, target bandwidth/bit rate in bps for iptfs
tunnel.  This rate is the nominal timing for the fixed
size packet. If congestion control is enabled the rate"
C: Throughout the document there seems to be an odd mix of single and double-spaces (hey! I did note that this section is nits :-))

"information that IP traffic flow security obscures such as the true activity of the flows using IP traffic flow security."
P: "obscures, such as..."

[Ballot comment]
# Routing AD comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08

## COMMENTS

### Section 4.2

You have "TFS bit rate may be specified at layer 2 wire rate" and "TFS bit rate may be specified at layer 3 packet rate". Shouldn't that be "as", not "at"? I did go looking for insight in ipsecme-yang but it just made me think that document has the same (looks to me like a) bug.

### Section 6

I'm a little mystified why "For the implications regarding write configuration" considering this is a read-only MIB? (Which the very next paragraph goes on to say.) The same applies a few paragraphs down where you talk about "who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB module" -- isn't it really just who can GET (read) the objects? And the same for the "Further" bullet point.

## NITS

- s/paccket/packet/

[Ballot comment]
Thank you, Don, for quickly addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT points from my ballot. I sincerely hope that this discussion has improved the document.

Please do not forget to also update the tree with the right OID prefix ;-) but I am trusting you and the AD, Roman.

For archive: the previous DISCUSS ballot is at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/sbb3MSPy8XwkHPIZCNt9ZRCd6BQ/

Regards

-éric

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  Please can you add an RFC editor's note to ensure that the MIB Module and MIB tree are suitably updated once IANA has assigned a code point for the iptfsMIB.

I support Eric's comment that Guage32 (or possibly even CountedBasedGauge64 defined in RFC 2856) may be a better choice than Counter64 for the l2FixedRate and l3FixedRate.  However, I also appreciate that there is probably also a strong desire to keep the MIB entirely consistent with the YANG.

I noted that the IANA considerations section is requesting an OID code point for both the iptfs and ipsec MIBs, but it wasn't clear to me why ipsec was being registered here, since the isn't any ipsec MIB being defined in this document.  Is this registration left over from an earlier draft, or does it serve some other purpose?

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document (even if I am balloting a DISCUSS);

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Tero Kivinen for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* it lacks the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Inconsistent intended status & use of experimental code point

This document is standard track, but the OID used in section 4.1 is 'experimental' and in section 4.2 `experimental 500` per https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml. Please request IANA to assign an OID from the 1.3.6.1.2.1 tree.

[Ballot comment]
## COMMENTS


### Section 1

```
  Note an IETF MIB model for IPsec was never standardized however the
  structures here could be adapted to existing MIB implementations.
```

Perhaps clarify "existing MIB implementations" ? I guess this is about proprietary IPsec MIBs, but clarification will be welcome.

### Section 4.2

Should the construct with `` be used to allow for easy file extraction ?

`mailto:ekinzie.labn.net` is probably wrong ;-)

`l2FixedRate`and `l3FixedRate` have 'counter64' type, RFC 2578 section 7.1.10 defines this type as monotically increasing. I understand that there are no interger64 in RFC 2578 but why not using a different unit than 'bps' for those two items ?

### Section 5

The IANA section should probably follow more closely RFC 8126, notably specifying the right registry (e.g., "SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB")

### Section 8.1

Unsure whether I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs (and perhaps I-D.ietf-ipsecme-iptfs) is a normative reference (i.e., I can implement this I-D MIB without accessing the YANG module).

## NITS


## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-05}
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S4.1, and elsewhere

* Tracking "incomplete" packets made me wonder: should there be a counter
  for number of packets fragmented?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the MIB - Remote Network Monitoring registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

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

two new registrations are to be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Descriptor: iptfs
OID Type: OID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Descriptor: ipsec
OID Type: OID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

If this is incorrect, please let us know

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'Definitions of
Managed Objects for IP Traffic Flow Security'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-04. 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


  This document describes managed objects for the management of IP
  Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document
  provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG
  module for the same purpose.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc3410: Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

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 1 November 2019.

(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?

  Proposed Standard.

(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:

  This document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Roman Danyliw.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

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

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(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.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(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.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

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

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(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.

  No IANA actions needed.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.

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 1 November 2019.

(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?

  Proposed Standard.

(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:

  This document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

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

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(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.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(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.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

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

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(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.

  No IANA actions needed.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.

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 1 November 2019.

(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?

  Proposed Standard.

(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:

  This document describes managed objects for the the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.  This document provides a read only version of the objects defined in the YANG module for the same purpose.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the SNMP MIB for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward SNMP MIB model definition and is derived from the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

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

  None. The SNMP MIB was updated based on the YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs and WG LC related discussions.

(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.

  This document is basically a read only version of the YANG model defined in draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs.  (A yang doctor review was conducted on that document.)

(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.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  Some ID nit warnings are present due to the whitespaces in the MIB definitions. 

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

  A yang doctor review was performed on the the corresponding YANG model.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  No IANA actions needed.

(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.

  No IANA actions needed.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits were checked. Authors said they have validated the MIB with SMI tools. Document Shepherd has not validated the MIB.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The companion yang document was checked, this MIB was not.