Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management

This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for

Traffic Management Benchmarking
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-03

This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: March 2015.

(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 indicated on the title page.
All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
in part because they do not define protocols and
the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement
did not apply.  However, they are specifications and
the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
level of requirements.

(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 specifies the methodology for benchmarking the
traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing,
shaping, etc.). One challenge has been to provide a repeatable test method that
objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management
capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management
with representative traffic, including stateless and statefull traffic.
The consensus is that the challenge has been met, and its time to
gain more experience with the procedures as specified.

Working Group Summary:

There has been fairly continuous progress during development. The most lively
discussions were prompted by presentation of actual test results using
the draft methods, which require significant time investment but are well-
worth the result. These drafts serve a useful purpose for the industry.

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?

As far as expert reviews, there was substantial review from several industry
professionals, most notably one a CCNP, one a professional telecom industry
consultant, and several from a vendor (Brocade).

Personnel:

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

Al Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is 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've reviewed this draft at each of three WGLCs. Nits check is now clean.
AFAICT, all my comments and those of the WG have been addressed.

(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.

There was cross-area review with the AQM WG, good comments were addressed.
ALl WGLC have been cross posted to AQM 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.

None.

(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?

There is no IPR claimed, according to the authors.

(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 disclosed.

(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?

Although the comments and review intensity started strong,
it now appears that the WG is satisfied.
The third WGLC on -02 closed on 19 Feb 2015 with a small number
of comments.
The second WGLC (on -01) closed on 6 January, 2015 with substantial
comments.
The first WGLC (on -00) closed October 21 2014, with substantial
comments.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits

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

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

All references are Normative, and marked as such.
There appear to be some missing references, to MEF-14 MEF-19 and MEF-37.

This will be fixed in next rev (04).

(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).

There are no IANA actions required,
although the wording of the IANA section is
somewhat unusual.

(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.

NA.
Back