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?

   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.


  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

  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.) 


(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

  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.


(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?


(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. 


(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.


(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.


(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.