Changes are expected over time. This version is dated January 9, 2013.
(1.a) Stan Ratliff (email@example.com) is the document shepherd for this document. The shepherd has personally reviewed the document, and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(1.b) The document has had adequate review from both key working group members and from key non-WG members. The shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.
(1.c) The shepherd does not have any concerns about the document needing additional review.
(1.d) The shepherd does not have any concerns or issues with the document that the responsible Area Director or the IESG need to be aware of. IPR disclosures were not necessary, therefore, none have been filed.
(1.e) Working group consensus behind this document is solid. The document represents strong concurrence of the working group as a whole, the the WG understands and agrees with the document.
(1.f) No one has threatened appeal or has indicated discontent with the document.
(1.g) The document shepherd has run the "idnits" tool against the document. The document has met all required formal review criteria.
(1.h) The document has split its references into normative and informative. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-17, which is currently in IESG evaluation, with one DISCUSS but enough votes to pass, once the DISCUSS is resolved. The shepard is confident that OLSRv2 will be published soon. Other than that, to the shepherd's knowledge, there are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are in an unclear state. There are no downward references.
(1.i) The shepherd has verified that document IANA consideration section exists, and is consistent with the body of the document. No protocol extensions are requested. The necessary IANA registries are clearly defined. No new registries are requested. No expert review has been requested.
(1.j) The document has been run through the "smilint" checker. Warnings exist due to references to "FLOAT-TC-MIB", however, those references appear to be due to a deficiency of the tool (e.g., RFC6340 is 'too new' to be in view by the tool).
(1.k) 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 defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 developed in the MANET working group.
Working Group Summary The process for reaching working group consensus on this was smooth; no controversy existed. Working group consensus behind the document is solid.
Document Quality This document shepherd is not aware of existing implementations of this MIB. Review by MIB doctor was discussed within the working group, however, the WG consensus was that this review was unnecessary, as the WG contains sufficient expertise to determine applicability of all objects, and correctness of the MIB.