Subject: [Ips] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 19:52:24 -0400

Minor correction - in the Working Group Summary, the words "in order"
should be removed from the following sentence:

>    The scope of the
>    MIB was reduced to server monitoring in order, as that comprised
>    most of the interest in (and perceived value of) the MIB.

My mistake, sorry, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Black, David
> Subject: Publication Requested: iSNS MIB
> 
> Publication has just been requested on the iSNS MIB draft.  The
> PROTO process (cf. draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-06.txt)
> is being used.  Here is the PROTO writeup:
> 
> PROTO writeup: 
>                Definitions of Managed Objects for iSNS 
>                    (Internet Storage Name Service) 
>                    draft-ietf-ips-isns-mib-09.txt
> 
> Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard
> PROTO shepherd: David L. Black (IPS WG Chair)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 
>    1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of 
> the Internet
>         Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this 
> ID is ready
>         to forward to the IESG for publication?
> 
> Yes.  The chair has reviewed the text portions of the draft, and is
> relying upon the WG's MIB Expert (Keith McCloghrie)'s review of the
> MIB content.
> 
>    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
>         and key non-WG members?
> 
> Yes.
>         Do you have any concerns about the
>         depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
> 
> No.
> 
>    1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more 
> review from a
>         particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
>         complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
> 
> Needs the usual IETF OPS Area MIB Doctor review.
> 
>    1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this 
> document that
>         you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
>         example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain 
> parts of the
>         document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
>         it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed 
> in the WG
>         and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to 
> advance the
>         document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
> 
> No.  The IESG should be aware that this is a monitoring-only MIB - it
> cannot be used for configuration, as it contains no writeable objects.
> 
>    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 solid support for this document within the WG, including
> support for it being only for monitoring iSNS servers; it cannot do
> configuration, and is not applicable to iSNS clients.
> 
>    1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>         discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
>         separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
> 
> No.
> 
>    1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to 
> all of the
>         ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
> 
> The online nits checker says everything is ok.
> 
>    1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative 
> references?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>         Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
>         also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an 
> unclear state?
>         (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
>         normative references to IDs, it will delay 
> publication until all
>         such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
> 
> There are no normative references to Internet Drafts.
> 
>    1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
>         announcement includes a write-up section with the following
>         sections:
> 
>         *    Technical Summary
> 
>         *    Working Group Summary
> 
>         *    Protocol Quality
> 
>    1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can 
> be found in
>         the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.
> 
> -- Technical Summary
> 
>    The iSNS protocol provides storage name service functionality on 
>    an IP network that is being used for iSCSI or iFCP storage. This 
>    draft provides a mechanism to monitor multiple iSNS Servers, 
>    including information about registered objects in an iSNS 
>    Server. 
> 
> --  Working Group Summary
> 
>    This MIB was originally undertaken as a MIB for monitoring and
>    configuration of both iSNS servers and clients, but ran into
>    significant complexity and structural issues.  The scope of the
>    MIB was reduced to server monitoring in order, as that comprised
>    most of the interest in (and perceived value of) the MIB.
> 
> -- Protocol Quality
> 
>    The protocol has been reviewed for the ips WG by Keith McCloghrie.
>    An approval announcement should credit a MIB Doctor as having
>    reviewed this for the IESG.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David (ips WG chair)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips