Shepherd writeup
rfc7784-11

 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
     Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
     
Proposed Standard as indicsted on the title page.

 (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 specifies the Management Information Base (MIB) for the
IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects.

  Working Group Summary:

WG process on this draft was unremarkable. Given the people are mostly
not that interested in MIBs, there was good support for adoption, at
least one thorough technical review, but no comments during WG LC.

  Document Quality:

The document has been reviewed multiple times and is of good quality.

  Personnel:
     Document Shepherd:  Donald Eastlake, 3rd
     Responsible Area Director:  Alia Atlas

 (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
     by the Document Shepherd.

The Shepherd read the document and the resulting review comments which
have been resolved in the draft were posted here
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06518.html.

 (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
     breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Now that this document has had MIB Doctor review, I do not believe
further formal review is required..

 (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?

It has received the required MIB Doctor review and the MIB Doctor's
comments have been resolved.

 (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.

This is an important document. No specific concerns other than that
directorate review is needed as indicated above.

 (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 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?

There was good support for the adoption of this document. Not that
many people are interested in MIBs so it is not surprising that there
were no last call comments other than the Shepherd's.

(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.

No.

(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.

Nits found earlier by the Shepherd have been fixed. The only remaining
things found by the nits checker are an apparent reference that is
actually inside the MIB.

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

MIB Doctor review has been done and all comments resolved.

(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?

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.

The only IANA action is the allocation of an OID for the TRILL OAM
MIB.

(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.

No new registries are created.

(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 Shephard did not complete any automated validations.
Back