Definitions of Managed Objects for Internet Small Computer System
Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (STORM WG Co-Chair)
(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 - this is a MIB update that replaces a
Proposed Standard RFC. The intended status is indicated
in the title page header.
(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:
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it
defines objects for managing a client using the Internet Small
Computer System Interface (iSCSI) protocol (SCSI over TCP).
This document makes minor updates to the iSCSI MIB originally
defined in RFC 4544 to match the current SCSI specifications.
Working Group Summary:
Nothing exceptional to note.
There are multiple implementations of the iSCSI MIB (RFC 4544)
that is updated by this document. The MIB Doctor review requested
a significant number of functional additions beyond the usual
MIB checks - the WG chose to make many of the changes, but
not all of them.
Document Shepherd: David Black
Responsible Area Director: Martin Stiemerling
(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 Shepherd has reviewed this version of the document
and believes that it is ready for RFC publication. The Document
Shepherd's review focused on changes from the RFC that will be replaced.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
(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.
(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.
(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, reconfirmed on August 10, 2013.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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 is largely silent, but the Document Shepherd believes that
the need for this MIB update is clearly understood by the WG as
a whole, and no objections have been 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.)
(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.
No problems. idnits wonders whether the disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
work is needed; it is, due to the fact that this document is based on RFC 4544.
idnits noticed that an updated -08 version of
draft-ietf-storm-iscsi-sam exists; that does not require a revised draft.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The MIB Doctor review has been performed and the draft updated accordingly.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative
(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?
There are normative references to two storm WG drafts - the iscsi-cons
draft is in the RFC Editor's Queue, and the iscsi-sam draft is in
IETF Last Call (its second IETF Last Call).
(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
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC 4544 - that's listed on the title page
and discussed in the introduction, but not in the abstract. If
desired, the RFC Editor can be requested to add a sentence to the
abstract to state that RFC 4544 is being obsoleted.
(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).
The IANA considerations section updates one MIB identifier, and is
correct - IANA has requested a change to the RFC Editor's note to
retain the text that will record IANA's action - a revised draft will
be submitted to do that after IESG Evaluation.
(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.
(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.
The MIB Doctor review included automated checks on the MIB definition.
The Document Shepherd saw no point in duplicating those.