MIB Transfer from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 WG
draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-02-10
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-01-27
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-01-13
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-01-13
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from AUTH |
2015-01-02
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2014-12-02
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-12-01
|
01 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-12-01
|
01 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-12-01
|
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2014-12-01
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-12-01
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-12-01
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-12-01
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-12-01
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-27
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] What Brian said in his ballot. |
2014-11-25
|
01 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I have the same questions that Brian put in his Discuss, but if you answer his questions, I'll believe you ... |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot discuss] This strictly a DISCUSS to make sure I understand the process going forward. Will any of the RFCs listed in section 2 need … [Ballot discuss] This strictly a DISCUSS to make sure I understand the process going forward. Will any of the RFCs listed in section 2 need to have their status changed to Historic? Can we mark an RFC as being obsoleted by an IEEE spec? |
2014-11-24
|
01 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-11-23
|
01 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-11-20
|
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-11-07
|
01 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] As I can't find anything to complain about in this most straightforward of documents, I'll have to whine about stuff in the shepherd … [Ballot comment] As I can't find anything to complain about in this most straightforward of documents, I'll have to whine about stuff in the shepherd writeup. The feedback received was integrated and the feedbacker (sic) states he is happy with the changes. That should be "feederbackerer". And who you calling sic? Nope. No one cared What does Scott Bradner have to do with this? It's also in my favorite font... Wingdings? |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-11-25 |
2014-11-06
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-11-06
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-10-30
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2014-10-30
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2014-10-30
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-10-30
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-10-27
|
01 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-27
|
01 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-10-24
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2014-10-24
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Transferring MIB Work from IETF … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Transferring MIB Work from IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG to IEEE 802.3 WG) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Transferring MIB Work from IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB WG to IEEE 802.3 WG' 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 2014-11-06. 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 records the transfer of responsibility for the Ethernet-related MIB modules DOT3-OAM-MIB, SNMP-REPEATER-MIB, POWER- ETHERNET-MIB, DOT3-EPON-MIB, EtherLike-MIB, EFM-CU-MIB, ETHER-WIS and MAU-MIB from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 Working Group. This document also describes the procedures associated with the transfer, in a similar way as RFC 4663 which records the transfer of the IETF Bridge MIB work to the IEEE 802.1 Working Group. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-10-23
|
01 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231 WG: OpsAWG. Shepherd: Warren Kumari This version of the writeup is dated 24 February 2012. (1) Informational - this document provides information for … Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231 WG: OpsAWG. Shepherd: Warren Kumari This version of the writeup is dated 24 February 2012. (1) Informational - this document provides information for the Internet community. It documents that the IETF transitioned some MIBs to the IEEE. No muss, no fuss. (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 records the transfer of ownership of the Ethernet- related MIB modules DOT3-OAM-MIB, SNMP-REPEATER-MIB, POWER-ETHERNET- MIB, DOT3-EPON-MIB, EtherLike-MIB, EFM-CU-MIB, ETHER-WIS and MAU-MIB from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 Working Group. This document also describes the procedures associated with the transfer, relying heavily on RFC 4663 (which records an earlier transfer to the IEEE 802.1 Working Group) as the primary source. Working Group Summary: This documents transfers that have already occurred. Document Quality: The document is well written and clear. The large majority of document is simply a list / table of the IETF source document, the IEEE name and location of MIBs that we transitioned to the IEEE. Personnel: Warren Kumari will be the document shepherd. Benoit Claise will be the AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd: I read the document and followed the links. There isn't much else that could be checked. There was a missing 't' at the end of a URL, which has been addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There was (as expected) not very much feedback on this document. It is basically administrivia. Dan Romascanu (one of the authors) forwarded this to David Law (Chair of IEEE 802.3) and the ieee_ietf coordination list. David who "reviewed the document and have no comments" - http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.opsawg/3566 We see no need for more review on a factual documentation of history. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective? Nope. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document. None. (7) Has each author confirmed all appropriate IPR disclosures? Yup! (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? Nope! David Harrington said: ------- I reviewed this document. This document references a lot of the material in RFC4663. As the author of RFC4663, from my perspective, it is good to go. The IESG write-up should probably include discussion about copyright and IPR. RFC4663 discusses legal concerns about copyright and IPR for the bridge MIB modules; this document merely references RFC4663. I believe this is adequate, given what we found when considering the transfer documented in RFC4663. 1) The IETF retains the original copyrights granted by the authors, for both publication of the IETF versions of the document and any derivative works done within the IETF standards process. The IEEE needs to get permission from the authors to develop derivative works. This is between IEEE and the authors and does not involve the IETF. 2) Any IPR claimed against the IETF version remains relative to the IETF versions. The IEEE has its own rules for declaring IPR related to IEEE documents, and the need to declare IPR related to the IEEE versions is between IEEE and the IPR holders. David Harrington ietfdbh@comcast.net ------- (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg03559.html) Figured I should mention this to y'all. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? There was almost no discussion on this document. Due to the nature of the document this is to be expected. The feedback received was integrated and the feedbacker (sic) states he is happy with the changes. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? Nope. No one cared (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Nope. It references a bunch of MIBs that we transfered to the IEEE. If you *really* want, you could go check those and heap derision upon them if you find any errors, but that feels like it would end badly for all... (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Sure have. They are all informative... (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement? Nope, Not a single one... (15) Are there downward normative references? Nope. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Nope. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section. The document requires no actions from the IANA. This section is really short, well written and all the words are correctly spelt. It's also in my favorite font... (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. None. |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231.all@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2014-10-22
|
01 | Warren Kumari | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-14
|
01 | Tom Taylor | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01.txt |
2014-09-30
|
00 | Warren Kumari | Document shepherd changed to Warren Kumari |
2014-09-23
|
00 | Warren Kumari | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-07-24
|
00 | Tom Taylor | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-00.txt |