Shepherd writeup
rfc7928-13

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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; this is appropriate.


(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 
  or introduction.


Abstract:

   Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
   of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
   some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
   combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
   This document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
   characterizations of AQM schemes.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?


Over it's lifetime, this document changed scope a couple of times.  It currently contains guidance for characterizing AQM algorithm performance, though it had started out to prescribe evaluation methods for AQM algorithms being considered in the working group.  As time went on, the focus shifted, and the WG did not use the guidelines in a prescriptive way.  The current guidelines are not fully parameterized, and it is assumed that someone performing a characterization would consider how to parameterize configurations relevant to their own networks or scenarios of interest.

Ideally there would be running code (as mentioned by Dave, among others) for performing the characterizations, e.g. implemented using some tool such as ns-3, mininet, etc, however, this has not come about yet.

Where it sits now, the document is suitable as Informational guidance, but it is not a prescriptive and fully defined spec, like for example, an IPPM metric would be.  It simply collects guidance and description of the set of things to look at and the measurements of interest in common AQM performance testing situations.



Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?


The document is of sufficient quality that someone (e.g. a graduate student) could read it and implement proper tests.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?


Wesley Eddy (wes@mti-systems.com) is the shepherd, and Mirja K├╝hlewind (ietf@kuehlewind.net) is the AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.


I have reviewed it multiple times; it is ready for publication.


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


No concerns.


(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.


N/A


(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.


During last call in the WG there were concerns raised about the test descriptions not being fully specified, but the document at that point was inconsistent about its goals, and it seems that fixing that remedied the issue.  There was not any threat of appeal or other action though, and after announcing the intention to continue with the revised document following WGLC, there was no protest.


(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.


(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?   


Reasonable consensus.


(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. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 


No.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.


There are a couple of warnings about obsolete references; this can be fixed by the RFC Editor, but does not impact the tests described in the document.


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


N/A.


(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.


N/A.



(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).


There are no IANA considerations.


(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.


N/A


(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.


N/A
Back