Shepherd writeup
rfc8219-08

As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up
for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06
(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, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational.

(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
   Benchmarking WG has treated both IP address families in separate RFCs.
   This document targets IPv6 transition technologies. It first 
   divides the different mechanisms into four categories, and avoids 
   separate procedures for each category.  Dual-stack 
   hosts can be benchmarked using the existing methods.
   The remaining categories are encapsulation, single translation
   and double translation mechanisms. The benchmarking tests can provide 
   insights about the performance of these technologies, 
   which can act as useful feedback for developers, as well as 
   for network operators going through the IPv6 transition process.



Working Group Summary

   Once the Working Group agreed on the approach taken in this draft,
   development of the draft was straightforward and consensus was 
   smooth.

Document Quality

   Review of key v6 experts was obtained, see Acknowledgements.

Personnel

Al Morton in the Document Shepherd.
Warren Kumari is the Responsible 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.

The shepherd has reviewed the document many times, and the current
version is ready for PUB.
Note that nits runs will complain about example IP addresses,
BMWG has its own address space allocated for lab testing.

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

No, although I'm interested to see the INT Area Directorate review
if there is one.


(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.

(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.


(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, every author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures as of April 3, 2017.

(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? 

Quite a few WG members were active in discussions over several years,
resulting in feedback that the authors executed and
smooth consensus followed.

(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 particular conflicts, all comments were constructive and 
taken that way.

(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.

nits run is clean, noting that BMWG has its own address space for
testing, and the nits checker does not yet recognize our exception
to address space requirements.

(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, and divided appropriately.

(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 other docs affected.

(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 requests for 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.

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