Shepherd writeup

(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 this document updates an informational RFC (RFC 2330).  The RFC type is indicated on the title page header.

(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

To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments aspects specified as Type-P for test packets.  This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework, RFC 2330, with advanced considerations for measurement methodology and testing.  The existing framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path when it is aggregated with other flows.  Networks have evolved and test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected network features may dominate the measured performance.  This memo describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and support of application design using IPPM metrics.

Working Group Summary

This draft was first introduced to the working group in October 2012. Support for the draft was indicated at meetings with no dissents.

Document Quality

As an update to the IPPM Framework, this document adds new and updated considerations for stream parameters.

As documented, other topics in the IPPM Framework which might be updated or augmented are deferred to future work.  This includes the topics of passive and various forms of of hybrid active/passive measurements.

The document shepherd was Bill Cerveny. The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(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 document shepherd reviewed the document as a “-02” draft and reviewed the changes which constitute “-03” and “-04”.

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


According to the draft, Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos Pentikousis contributed comments on the draft. Konstantinos Pentikousis provided an extensive technical review on the draft.  Ann Cerveny provided editorial review and comments.

(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 review from a broader perspective is required.

(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.

There are no specific concerns or issues. Note however, as stated in the scope of the document, this document is a partial update of RFC2330 and not a comprehensive update:

“The scope is to update key sections of [RFC2330], adding considerations that will aid the development of new measurement methodologies intended for today's IP networks.  Specifically, this memo describes useful stream parameters in addition to the information in Section 11.1 of [RFC2330] and described in [RFC3432] for periodic streams.

“The memo also provides new considerations to update the criteria for metrics in section 4 of [RFC2330], the measurement methodology in section 6.2 of [RFC2330], and other topics related to the quality of metrics and methods (see section 4).

“Other topics in [RFC2330] which might be updated or augmented are deferred to future work.  This includes the topics of passive and various forms of of hybrid active/passive measurements.”

(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, each author confirmed that there are no IPR disclosures required.

(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 disclosure has been filed.

(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?

At the IETF89 meeting, approximately 6 people (by a show of hands) indicated their support for the document.

(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, there haven't been any threats of appeals

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

No valid nits were identified with “-04” of the document. 

An invalid nit was identified with “-04”, for which it was claimed that the RFC being updated was not identified as such in the abstract.  The RFC being updated is indicated in the abstract, but the idnits program didn’t parse this information correctly.

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

Not applicable

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


(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?

None exist.

(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.

This draft is intended to be published as an informational RFC and as such, does not have downward normative references.

(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.

This document is an update to the IPPM Framework, RFC 2330.

(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.

There are no new IANA registries specific to this document.

(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.

No part of this document has been written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.