Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-14

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

[Ballot comment]
I see that there was agreement with the addition as suggested by the SecDir reviewer and I also agree with these suggested additions, but I don't see them in the version under review.  Are these planned additions already, if not, could you please add in that text?

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/dYwXHZ__a4o9qPA8LXEfHj0URg4

Thank you!

[Ballot comment]
The normative SHOULD in Sec 5.1.1 seems a bit troubling. If there is to be a normative recommendation about this, wouldn't it be a MUST? If not, under what circumstances would it be ok to flip header bits at one endpoint or at an intermediate node to color a packet when the other endpoint might interpret those bits as being used for a different purpose?

[Ballot comment]
What is the nature of the experiment? Section 5.1 seems to describe an experiment that predates publication, but I don't see anything to describe why the draft is experimental.

[Ballot comment]
Two minor comments:

(1) For traceability purposes, it would be nice if the datatracker showed that draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m was replaced by draft-tempia-ippm-p3m…. The same for draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework and draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm, which according to the Shepherd's write-up were precursors of this document.

(2) What is the Experiment?  I very much like the explanation in the Shepherd’s write up; having something like that in the document would be nice.

[Ballot comment]
Firstly, I'd strongly suggest that the authors address Eric's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13-opsdir-telechat-vyncke-2017-11-21/).

I really like the concept / approach, but I think that there are many places where the document hand-waves away some of the details - like how do I configure this (and more importantly, how do I detect) so that I'm not making in too many places, and having one device stomp on another devices' markings? Section 3.1.1 says that it is desirable to have a single node coloring -- is this supposed to mean a single node *per network* (which makes this useless)? Or somehow per flow (then how do I know who's the right device to mark?) Perhaps devices should watch for already colored packets if they are intending to color, and alert on this case as an error?

More operational guidance would go a long way towards making this more operational useful - as this is Experimental I'm not making this a discuss.


I had some comments and questions:
1: The document lists 8 authors above the fold. This may be must better as an Editor (or two) and the rest moved to contributors.

2: The document is Experimental, but I don't really see (perhaps I missed it) a description of the experiment to be performed -- Section 5.1 has a writeup of experience gained from running this at TI, but that seems more like a separate Informational document.

Nits:
Section 1.  Introduction
"The lack of adequate tools to measure packet loss with the desired accuracy drove an effort to design a new method for the performance monitoring of live traffic, possibly easy to implement and deploy." -- did you mean "possibly" here? This makes it sound like having it easy to implement and deploy isn't a goal/ desirable, more like a lucky coincidence if it happens...

Section 1.  Introduction
"In case the marking field is obtained by changing existing field values of"  -- perhaps: "In cases where the marking..."? Actually, this whole sentence feels a bit clumsy.

Section 2.  Overview of the method
"Since a flow is continuous and cannot be stopped when a counter has to be read, it could be difficult to determine exactly when to read the counter. " -- I think that this would be better if it were "it can be difficult" or "it would be difficult".

Section 3.1.  Packet loss measurement
"Traffic coloring could be done by R1 itself or by an upward router." -- what is an "upward" router? Was this supposed to be upstream? Even if so, I think that there needs to be more precision here.

[Ballot comment]
A couple of high level comments on the structure and intention of this document:

1) As the shepherd write-up states „this specification does not define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by different protocols“ therefore I think it should be informational.

2) I think section 5.1 should be moved to the appendix or even into a new document that could be send to the ISE. If the intention is that DSCP marking is explained as an example, there is no need to talk about Telecom Italia or any specific details of their implementation. The level of detail for the DCSP approach should stay similar as for sections 5.2-5.4 with no need to mention that this is in use by Telecom Italia. Respectively, section 8 does also not need to name Telecom Italia’s deployment but can simply refer to the use of DSCP as one example.

3) There is quite some redundancy in the text that could be removed and would make the document shorter and even easier to read. Respectively, I don’t think section 7 as well as some of the motivation text in the intro is needed.

Nits:
1) maybe s/a live traffic flow/an active traffic flow/ … not sure what is meant with „live“ here.
2) In section 9, this is incorrect:

„Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to the IP header of data packets…“
as using DSCP is just one possible implementation. It should say probably instead:
„Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to a header or encapsulation of the data packets…“

Similarly, this sentence should be adapted:

„The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited because the method only relies on information contained in the IP header without any release of user data.“

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

(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?

  The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put
  together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia.
  Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the 
  foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement
  utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales
  in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not
  define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by
  different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of
  RFC, and it is indicated in the first page.

(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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and
  jitter measurements on live traffic.  This method is based on
  Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique.  A report on the operational
  experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an
  example and show the method applicability.  This technique can be
  applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could
  be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and
  without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the
  editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all
  the WGLC comments in a timely fashion.

  While the document contain a single Editor, it lists more than five
  authors. The history and rationale for that is as follows: the ideas
  on this methodology originated and were introduced to the IETF
  from two I-Ds: draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm and
  draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m. Most recently, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m
  targeted the IPPM WG, and was renamed to draft-tempia-ippm-p3m.
  After adotpion in IPPM, it merged with the descriptive portions of
  draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework (the architectural
  portions were deamed out of scope for IPPM. This union added more
  value to the work because it completed the technical explanation of
  the methodology.  Consequently new authors joined the draft after
  this merge.

Document Quality

  There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined
  in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols
  that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing
  these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc.
  This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as
  per .
  Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software
  vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans
  to implement these methods.
  No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates
  are necessary.

Personnel

  Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd.
  Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

  This document is ready for publication.  The document shepherd has
  reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after
  WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues
  that were raised in the working group have been addressed.

(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.

  No such reviews needed.
  However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this
  document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir.

(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.

  No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved.

(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.

  Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at
  . See:
 
  Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following
  IPR call .
  All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello,
  M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.)
  And also, IPR Disclosure 3071 is filed against this document, at
  .

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption.

(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? 

  The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable.

(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.

  No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise.

(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.

  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).

  The document requests no IANA actions.

(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.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-09-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: cpignata@cisco.com, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, Carlos Pignataro , draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'Alternate Marking method for passive
and hybrid performance monitoring'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-09-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and
  jitter measurements on live traffic.  This method is based on
  Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique.  A report is provided in
  order to explain an example and show the method applicability.  This
  technique can be applied in various situations as detailed in this
  document and could be considered passive or hybrid depending on the
  application.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2557/

(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?

  The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put
  together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia.
  Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the 
  foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement
  utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales
  in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not
  define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by
  different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of
  RFC, and it is indicated in the first page.

(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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and
  jitter measurements on live traffic.  This method is based on
  Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique.  A report on the operational
  experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an
  example and show the method applicability.  This technique can be
  applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could
  be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and
  without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the
  editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all
  the WGLC comments in a timely fashion.

  While the document contain a single Editor, it lists more than five
  authors. The history and rationale for that is as follows: the ideas
  on this methodology originated and were introduced to the IETF
  from two I-Ds: draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm and
  draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m. Most recently, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m
  targeted the IPPM WG, and was renamed to draft-tempia-ippm-p3m.
  After adotpion in IPPM, it merged with the descriptive portions of
  draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework (the architectural
  portions were deamed out of scope for IPPM. This union added more
  value to the work because it completed the technical explanation of
  the methodology.  Consequently new authors joined the draft after
  this merge.

Document Quality

  There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined
  in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols
  that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing
  these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc.
  This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as
  per .
  Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software
  vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans
  to implement these methods.
  No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates
  are necessary.

Personnel

  Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd.
  Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

  This document is ready for publication.  The document shepherd has
  reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after
  WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues
  that were raised in the working group have been addressed.

(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.

  No such reviews needed.
  However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this
  document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir.

(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.

  No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved.

(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.

  Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at
  . See:
 
  Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following
  IPR call .
  All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello,
  M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption.

(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? 

  The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable.

(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.

  No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise.

(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.

  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).

  The document requests no IANA actions.

(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.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

(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?

  The intended status is Experimental. When this work was first put
  together, it first described an operational experiment at Telecom Italia.
  Although the document is immensely more mature now, and the 
  foundational elements of an experiment are tested, the measurement
  utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a variety of scales
  in a plurality of network conditions. Further, this specification does not
  define protocol extensions but instead a method which can be used by
  different protocols. Experimental is therefore the appropriate type of
  RFC, and it is indicated in the first page.

(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 document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and
  jitter measurements on live traffic.  This method is based on
  Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique.  A report on the operational
  experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an
  example and show the method applicability.  This technique can be
  applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could
  be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application.

Working Group Summary

  The WG process as it relates to this document has been smooth and
  without major controversies. The WGLC was also smooth, and the
  editors have been very responsive and diligent in incorporating all
  the WGLC comments in a timely fashion.

Document Quality

  There is both significant and broad support for the methods defined
  in this document. This manifests itself in the number of protocols
  that are producing specifications (in other working groups) utilizing
  these methods natively with them. For example, BIER, MPLS, etc.
  This document has 12 other documents currently referencing it, as
  per .
  Further, there are many vendors (chip vendors, networking software
  vendors, etc.) either with implementations, roadmaps, or plans
  to implement these methods.
  No specific reviews of the document yet, I trust only Directorates
  are necessary.

Personnel

  Carlos Pignataro is the Document Shepherd.
  Spencer Dawkins is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

  This document is ready for publication.  The document shepherd has
  reviewed the draft numerous times, and in particular during and after
  WG LC, and finds that it is ready to advance to the IESG. All issues
  that were raised in the working group have been addressed.

(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.

  No such reviews needed.
  However, I would like at least the following Directorates to review this
  document, given key areas: intdir, rtgdir, secdir, opsdir, perfmetrdir.

(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.

  No such concerns, all the outstanding issues have been resolved.

(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.

  Initially, the adoption called mentioned IPR disclosure 2557, at
  . See:
 
  Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following
  IPR call .
  All listed authors and contributors responded explicitly (G. Fioccola, A. Capello,
  M. Cociglio, L. Castaldelli, M. Chen, L. Zheng, G. Mirsky, and T. Mizrahi.)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  Yes, IPR 2557, which was asked to be considered during adoption.

(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? 

  The WG consensus behind this document has been strong and stable.

(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.

  No errors were found on the ID nits check, only idnits noise.

(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.

  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).

  The document requests no IANA actions.

(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.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Luca Castaldelli , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, Giuseppe Fioccola , Tal Mizrahi , Alessandro Capello , Gregory Mirsky , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , "Gregory Mirsky" , "Luca Castaldelli" , "Alessandro Capello"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Tal Mizrahi" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, "Lianshu Zheng" , "Giuseppe Fioccola" , "Mauro Cociglio" , "Gregory Mirsky" , "Luca Castaldelli" , "Alessandro Capello"