Shepherd writeup
rfc8337-13

(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?

Experimental; appropriate and correctly indicated. Sections 9.1 and 10 discuss
aspects of the validation and evaluation of experiments with the approach.

(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

    The document introduces a new class of Model Based Metrics, designed to
    assess if a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined
    Target Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to
    successive subpaths.  The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly applied
    to key infrastructure, such as interconnects or even individual devices,
    to accurately detect if any part of the infrastructure will prevent paths
    traversing it from meeting the Target Transport Performance. Model Based
    Metrics exhibit several important new properties not present in other Bulk
    Transport Capacity Metrics, including the ability to reason about
    concatenated or overlapping subpaths.  The results are vantage independent
    which is critical for supporting independent validation of tests by
    comparing results from multiple measurement points.

Working Group Summary

    The document was extensively discussed in the IPPM working group over a
    period of three years; comments received during a first WGLC (particularly
    with respect to readability) led to extensive changes and a second last
    call. There was no particular controversy in the working group.

Document Quality

    The document has seen thorough review in the working group. The
    experimental methodology it describes has been under continuous
    development by the authors during the document's lifetime in the WG.

Personnel

    Brian Trammell is the document shepherd. 
    Spencer Dawkins 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 document was extensively discussed within the IPPM working group over a
    period of three years; comments received during a first WGLC (particularly
    with respect to readability) led to extensive changes and a second last
    call. 

(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.

    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.

    No concerns.

(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.

(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.

(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?   

    There is strong consensus among those who have read and reviewed it,
    though the subject is quite dense, so the entire group of active
    contributors has not read it. I had no concerns with the breadth of review
    and consensus.

(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.

    Reference to 2861 should be replaced with a reference to 7661. 

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

    No formal review criteria.

(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 to all. The document seeks to solve the same problems as those
    addresses in RFC 3148, but due to its experimental nature neither updates
    nor supercedes it. After experimentation with further model-based metrics,
    it may make sense to move 3148 to Historic.

(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).

    No actions 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.

    No actions for IANA.

(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 automated checks apply.
Back