(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
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.
The document has been reviewed multiple times and is of good quality.
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
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
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.
(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
MIB Doctor review has been done and all comments resolved.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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
(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.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
(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
(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
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.