Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ippm-route-10

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. 

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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? 

Proposed Standard, appropriate as the document proposes terminology and methodology for the measurement of comparable route-awareness in metrics, updating the standards-track IPPM framework (RFC 2330).

(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 introduces an advanced unidirectional route assessment
   (AURA) metric and associated measurement methodology, based on the IP
   Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330.  This memo updates RFC
   2330 in the areas of path-related terminology and path description,
   primarily to include the possibility of parallel subpaths between a
   given Source and Destination pair, owing to the presence of multi-
   path technologies.

Working Group Summary:

The document has working group consensus to publish; there was no particular controversy during the WG process.

Document Quality:

The document has been discussed within the IPPM working group for about two years, as a generalization of earlier work on adding partial route awareness to TWAMP. It has been reviewed by the community within the IPPM WG that maintains metrics within the 2330 framework. No formal or machine readable language reviews were made, as the document does not use any.

Personnel:

Brian Trammell is the document shepherd. Martin Duke 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 shepherd has followed the development of the document (as WG co-chair and as a document reviewer) throughout its development, and has performed one further review while preparing the shepherd writeup; in the shepherd's opinion after that review, the document is ready for review by the IESG for publication, boilerplate nit aside (see below).

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

No; the document has received the typical amount of review and feedback for documents published by IPPM.

(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; the shepherd is confident the right people to review this document have seen it.

(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?

Confirmed.

(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? 

IPPM as a WG comprises multiple communities; each community generally focuses on its own work and reviews the work of the others; this document received extensive review (and benefited from the feedback) of several working on IOAM; I judge consensus therefore to be broad and solid.

(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. 

The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires).

The references also require cleanup.

The shepherd has followed up with the authors to ensure these changes are made in a subsequent version; however, these changes will not have a substantive effect on the document's technical content.

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

None required.

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

Yes, though some appear stale and will be updated.

(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? 

Normative reference to draft-ippm-ioam-data (for security considerations) which also has WG consensus and is waiting for writeup.

(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 downrefs.

(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 updates 2330 but does not change its status. 2330 is mentioned in the abstract.

(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 8126). 

The document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section is thorough: I read it three times in a row in its entirety. (The document has 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. 

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, YANG modules, etc.

None.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG.
Back