Definitions of Managed Objects for Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib-13

[Ballot comment]
A nit - maybe adding a paragraph mentioning that from manageability perspective this document specifies only a subset of what corresponding YANG module defined in I-D softwire-yang provides would be suitable.

[Ballot comment]
A nit - maybe adding a paragraph mentioning that from manageability perspective this document specifies only a subset of what corresponding YANG module defined in I-D softwire-dslite-yang provides would be suitable.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for a clearly written document. I have some very editorial corrections
to suggest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§4.1.2:

>  invalid packets that have been identified.  There are two kind of

"...two kinds..."

>  - The Border Relay (BR) will validates the received packet's source

"...will validate..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>      DESCRIPTION
>          "Indicates that the PSID is represented as hexidecimal for
>          clarity."

"...hexadecimal..."
      ^

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB subregistry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

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

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: mapeMIB
Description: MAP-E-MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA upon approval of this document. Please check that our understanding of the name to be registered is correct.

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.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib@ietf.org, Yong Cui , softwire-chairs@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, softwires@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Managed Objects for MAP-E) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider
the following document: - 'Definitions of Managed Objects for MAP-E'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-02-26. 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for Mapping Address and Port with encapsulation (MAP-E) for use with
  network management protocols.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib/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?

Intended status: Standards Track
This document defines the MIB for MAP-E.

(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

Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E) [RFC7597] is a stateless tunnelling transition mechanism to provide the IPv4 connectivity over IPv6 access networks. This documents defines the corresponding Management Information Base (MIB) for using Internet-Standard Management Framework. This MIB module may be used for configuration and monitoring of MAP-E devices.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

This document was discussed in depth and well-reviewed, including MIB doctor review.
The WG achieves the consensus to publish this document.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

There is no implementation for this MIB currently. However, MAP-E is an important protocol for IPv6 transition, while its MIB should be the basis to support the management of MAP-E. The document has addressed all the concerns raised by the WG and the MIB Doctor.

Personnel

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

Softwire co-chair, Yong Cui, is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson is the Responsible AD.

(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 document is well written and 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.

(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.

N/A.

(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 IPR issue.

(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? 

The WG consensus is achieved and all of the related active participants agree on the advancement of this document.

(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 errors.
The ID nits report an "unused reference" warning because the RFC7598 is cited inside a specific MIB definition that cannot be detected automatically. Thus, we can ignore this warning.

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

MIB Doctor has reviewed the document and then the document has been revised accordingly.

(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 5226).

This document needs new IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER.

(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.

N/A.

(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.

There is no issue.