Shepherd writeup

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 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested: Informational

(2) Document Announcement 

Technical Summary: Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544.  This memo updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience.

Working Group Summary:

The draft had ample input and review from the Working Group, and Consensus was clear. We did not experience dissent or major disagreement; the process was fairly smooth.

Document Quality:

This is a testing methodology; there's no issue of running code or existing implementation.  The document is ready for publication


Sarah Banks is the Document Shepherd? Warren Kumari is the Responsible Area Director? 

(3) As the WG Co-Chair, I read and review most drafts coming into the working group, and ALL of the drafts written by my co-chair, as is this draft. In addition, the draft has received numerous reviews and comments from WG members. The document is well written, has clean nits (1 issue for date, which is fine), and is ready for publication in the view of the WG.

(4) I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed.

(5) This work was well contained and updates RFC 2544 based on our further experience, an RFC that originated in this same WG. There is no need for external WG input in my opinion, and we did not solicit any extra review outside of the WG.

(6) I have no specific concerns or issues that the  the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.

(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? Yes.

(8) No IPR disclosures have been made.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? We have strong consensus for this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No threats of appeals or otherwise have been made or are expected.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. Folks can run nits, however, the main issue raised was the date (May 2020), which is fine.

(12) No other formal review required.

(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? Nothing is in an unclear state.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? This draft updates RFC2544.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. This is NA/ there are no protocol changes required here.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. N/A

(19) This is a testing methodology draft, not a protocol proposal or likewise.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools? N/A