Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03
(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?
Informational, as shown in its title page header. This draft updates 2330,
which is also Informational. Although 7312 updates 2330, it does not update
2330 in every area. The updates proposed in this draft reference sections that
are not mentioned in 7312, so the WG had no choice but to update 2330.
(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 memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework, RFC 2330, with
new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. It updates the
definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to include IPv6 packets,
deprecates the definition of minimum standard-formed packet, and augments
distinguishing aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in
RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge
measurements within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases
include, but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol
encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
Area Networks (6LoWPAN).
Working Group Summary:
The need for this draft was raised by Brian Carpenter early in 2015. It had
three versions as an individual draft before being adopted by the IPPM Working
Group in July 2016. It's now in its third (-02) version. Discussion within
the WG has not been contentious, it's simply been aimed at improving the
quality and completeness of this draft.
Document Quality:
This draft simply describes the aspects of IP Performance Measurement affected
by the change from IPv4 to IPv6. These changes are well understood within the
IPPM WG, RFC 8259 is a clear example if this. Fred Baker and Marius Georgescu's
review appear in the IPPM WG archive. There were other comments at meetings.
Brian Carpenter reviewed an early version of the draft. See the ACKS.
Personnel:
Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee. Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.
I have read the draft carefully, it is clear and well-written, therefore ready
for submission to IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
No, this draft is only of interest within the IPPM WG.
(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.
No problems or 'uncomfortable' feelings about it.
(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?
This draft simply explores the changes needed for IPv6 Performance Measurement,
it references the relevant RFCs for that. It has no IPR disclosures, it
doesn't need any.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
Strong concurrence, well understood by th WG.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such reviews are needed.
(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?
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.
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. 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).
"This memo makes no requests of IANA."
(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.
None.
(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.
None.
Cheers, Nevil Brownlee