Reliable Server Pooling MIB Module Definition
draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-12

[Ballot comment]
1. ENRP is never expanded in the text.

2. I do not believe that copying all objects in the tree in Section 4 is useful.

3. It would be very useful to add REFERENCE clauses to the MIB objects which would help understanding the functionality by refering to the precize clauses in other rserpool documents.

4. The DESCRIPTION clauses of the TCs are extremely succint and do not help understand the funmctionality.

5. Why are some TCs limited to 65536 while other run to 4294967295

6. There is no discussion in the document of why this is an experimental track MIB module, and what that means to implementers and deployers. This should be documented in an Operational Consideration section, or something similar, if not the abstract and Introduction.

7.  The MIB defines an rserpoolENRPIndex ""An integer to uniquely identify an ENRP server." and a rserpoolENRPIdentifier column in the row "The ENRP server identifier of this ENRP server." Is there a one-to-one correspondence? or can there be multiple rows with the same rserpoolENRPIdentifier?

[Ballot discuss]
This document was discussed on the MIB Doctors and OPS-DIR lists. The content of the DISCUSS and COMMENT was contributed by David Harrington, bert Wijnen and Tina Tsou.

1. The Security Considerations section does not follow the guidelines in http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html . As a result only SNMPv1 is mentioned (as NOT RECOMMENDED) rather than 'SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3' and the vulnerability of the read-write objects is not described.

2. There are a number of read-write objects in the MIB module, but there is no definition of the persistency behavior of these objects in case of reset or reinitialization.

3. There is no copyright statement in the MODULE-IDENTITY description clause

4. Tha IANA considerations section must specify that the allocation is to be made from the Experimental tree.

5. I do not believe that the definition of the RserPoolDescriptionTC is justified. All over the MIB module this TC is used just for Description objects, no semantics. Using OCTET STRING for SYNTAX of these seems better, also I recommend to restrict the SIZE to something smaller than 4095

[Ballot discuss]
Bert Wijnen pointed out that the MIB document does not follow the
  MIB guidelines. Bert found two things that ought to be corrected:
  - read-write objects where the document do not state the expected
    persistency behaviour
  - missing copyright statement in the MODULE-IDENTITY descritpion
    clause

[Ballot discuss]
Bert Wijnen pointed out that the MIB document does not follow the
  MIB guidelines. Bert found two things that ought to be corrected:
  - read-write objects where the security considerations do not state
    the expected persistency behaviour
  - missing copyright statement in the MODULE-IDENTITY descritpion clause

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1) at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers:

Decimal Name Description References
------- ---- ----------- ----------
[tbd] rserpoolMIB MIB for managing a RSerPool [RFC-rserpool-mib-10]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Document Shepherd is Lyndon Ong. He has personally reviewed this
version of the document and believes that it is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication as an Experimental RFC.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has had adequate review from key WG members. The Document
Shepherd has no particular concerns about the depth and breadth of the
reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The Document Shepherd has no particular concerns that the document needs
more review.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The Document Shepherd has no particular additional concerns for the Area
Director or IESG. The question of need was raised on the mailing list
and elicited a number of responses from participants who were interested
in the MIB. No IPR disclosures related to the document have been filed.

(1.e) 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?


There is a firm WG consensus behind the document. It is (as a MIB)
primarily of interest to a subset of participants in the WG, but has
been reviewed and supported by WG members both interested in the MIB and
familiar with the protocols that would be managed by the MIB.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)


There has been no dispute over the document or expression of discontent.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.


The Document Shepherd has checked the document against nits and as far
as he could tell all nits have been satisfied. The document has not had
a formal MIB Doctor review, however it has been run through an automated
checker (see below). The document has its intended status (Experimental
RFC) at the top of the first page.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].


The document has allocated references to normative and informative. It
should be noted that some normative references are to Experimental RFCs
since the MIB is intended to manage protocols that have been defined in
Experimental RFCs. This seems appropriate since the MIB itself will be
Experimental.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?


As far as the Document Shepherd has been able to verify, the document's
IANA Considerations section exists and is in order. It does not
describe any Expert Review process.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?


As mentioned above, the MIB definitions in the document have been run
through an automated checker, in this case the smilint compiler package.

(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:


The Announcement Write-Up follows:


Technical Summary:

This document defines a SMIv2 compliant Management
Information Base (MIB) providing access to managed objects
in an implementation of the Reliable Server Pool architecture and
protocols. It is intended as an Experimental Track RFC.

Working Group Summary

This document has been reviewed by Rserpool protocol experts
within the WG and no controversy or difficulty was encountered with
obtaining consensus on this document.

Document Quality

There are no implementations of the MIB at this time, but
a number of researchers have implemented the protocols and
reviewed the MIB specification based on their work.


Personnel

Lyndon Ong, co-chair of the Rserpool WG, is shepherd for
this document.

Magnus Westerlund provided review as the responsible Area
Director.