|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 4131 (2005)
|
|
Title:
|
S. Green et al., "Management Information Base for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems for Baseline Privacy Plus", September, 2005
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This recommendation imports definitions from the referenced RFCs to complete the object identifier value assignments. Because these object identifier values are required for successful implementation of the MIB definitions it is necessary to include these RFCs as references.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=4131
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Generally stable and well-understood; real implementation desirable but not necessary; no known technical flaws; considered immature; may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified; deploying implementation of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Generally stable and well-understood; real implementation desirable but not necessary; no known technical flaws; considered immature; may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified; deploying implementation of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
/
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,/
"Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",/
STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999./
/
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,/
"Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April/
1999./
/
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,/
"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,/
April 1999./
/
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An/
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management/
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC/
3411, December 2002./
/
[RFC4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J./
Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network/
Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005./
/
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group/
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000./
/
[RFC2670] St. Johns, M., "Radio Frequency (RF) Interface/
Management Information Base for MCNS/DOCSIS compliant RF/
interfaces", RFC 2670, August 1999./
/
[DOCSIS] "Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications:/
Baseline Privacy Plus Interface Specification SP-BPI+-/
I11-040407", DOCSIS, April 2004, available at/
http://www.cablemodem.com./
http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/archives.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
