Skip to main content

A Framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)
draft-ietf-lmap-framework-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-09-11
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-07-13
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-07-06
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-07-02
14 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-04-30
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-04-30
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-04-30
14 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-04-29
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-04-29
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-04-29
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-04-29
14 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-04-29
14 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-04-29
14 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-04-29
14 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-04-29
14 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-14.txt
2015-04-17
13 Philip Eardley IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-04-17
13 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-13.txt
2015-04-09
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sarah Banks.
2015-04-09
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-04-09
12 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- general: Thanks for the significant consideration
of privacy, the draft has a quite good analysis. I
want to check though that the …
[Ballot comment]

- general: Thanks for the significant consideration
of privacy, the draft has a quite good analysis. I
want to check though that the plan is that other lmap
drafts, esp protocol drafts, will in fact describe
(and maybe mandate) ways to meet privacy goals, and
will not simply refer to section 8 of this and tell
developers to go figure it out. If that latter was
the plan/expectation, then we'd be better off
discussing that now, rather than as a late surprise
for the WG. I assume though that the plan is rather
to try make the lmap protocol something that can
really be used in a privacy sensitive manner and that
defaults to that where possible, in which case we'll
not have that problem.

- One way in which it might be possible to provide
evidence that a system respects user privacy would be
to have some kind of auditor entity as part of the
framework. For example, an MA could be setup to send
some selection of reports/instructions to (or
encrypted for) the auditor as well as to the normal
destination. Did the WG consider such an entity?
(This is not a DISCUSS as I can see pros and cons in
the auditor-approach, so I'm not sure if it'd be a
good idea in the end.)

- Thanks for section 8, one suggestion - I'd argue
that "privacy respecting/friendly" ought be a bullet
at the end of section 1, as if the system is not,
then it'll eventually be turned off, one way or
another. If you agree, I'd be happy. If not, I'll not
get in the way.

- 5.4 (and elsewhere) I'm not sure a Group-ID by
itself is sufficient to hide identity (timing and
soure addressing may expose it anyway). That should
be noted, and that lmap protocols should be analysed
to see what turns out to be the case. I'm not sure
talking about "anonymising" is really correct as
anonymity is a very very hard thing to achieve.

- section 8: I'm not that keen on considering the
privacy of organisations at the same level as that of
people. I can see why you might do it but that is
also often done as a way to minimise the privacy of
people.

- section 8: I didn't spot considerations related to
re-identification, which can be significant.  E.g. if
I can see other traffic that identifies a person and
the re-identify that person based on LMAP trafic
later on (or elsewhere). Did the WG consider that?

- section 8: I'm not sure that the "user consent"
thing is really of that much benefit here (and it's
ubiquitously abused on the Internet today).  It
would have been welcome had the WG come up with
something better, but then since I don't have a
solution to hand, I can't insist that you do;-)
2015-04-09
12 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-04-09
12 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-04-09
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-04-09
12 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-04-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for your very careful and detailed attention to security and privacy, with options suggested to protect privacy in practice through group …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for your very careful and detailed attention to security and privacy, with options suggested to protect privacy in practice through group ids instead of ones that identify an individual.

I just have one question. The security considerations section has a lower case 'must' for providing session encryption, but then the privacy section warns that monitoring can be possible when sessions are not encrypted.  When I saw the privacy considerations, I went back to the security section to make sure active attacks against session traffic that was not encrypted was addressed as I didn't see this same 'must' and by that time needed to go back to make sure something as in place.  I'm wondering why these weren't just addressed together since more security things could happen too if sessions were not encrypted (in other words, there could be less text, unless I am missing something and we need more on the security side).  Thanks!
2015-04-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-08
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Section 1, paragraph starting with "Broadly speaking there are two types of Measurement Method. "

s / Method / Methods

Figures:

Several figures …
[Ballot comment]
Section 1, paragraph starting with "Broadly speaking there are two types of Measurement Method. "

s / Method / Methods

Figures:

Several figures that start at the top of the page have the first line out of alignment.

Figure numbers might be useful. (For example, had there been numbers I could have referenced the figures with the alignment problem :-)  )
2015-04-08
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-04-08
12 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-04-08
12 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-04-08
12 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-04-08
12 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
This document provides a framework, as such it is not defining the specific final pieces.  Section 2 reads:

  Other LMAP specifications will …
[Ballot comment]
This document provides a framework, as such it is not defining the specific final pieces.  Section 2 reads:

  Other LMAP specifications will define an information model, the
  associated data models, and select/extend one or more protocols for
  the secure communication: . . .

I believe there are at least 2 superfluous forward references that the document can live without.

1. Information Model.  For example, in Section 5:

  The protocol model is closely related to the Information Model
  [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model], which is the abstract definition
  of the information carried by the protocol.  (If there is any
  difference between this document and the Information Model, the
  latter is definitive, since it is on the standards track.)  The
  purpose of both is to provide a protocol and device independent view,
  which can be implemented via specific protocols.  LMAP defines a
  specific Control Protocol and Report Protocol, but others could be
  defined by other standards bodies or be proprietary.  However it is
  important that they all implement the same Information Model and
  protocol model, in order to ease the definition, operation and
  interoperability of large-scale Measurement Systems.

Reference is made to Information Model work in progress that could match this document.  Given the disclaimer in the text about potential differences, I think that leaving a reference in the text could cause confusion.  IOW, I'm suggesting you take out the reference and the disclaimer, and just let the Information Model draft speak for itself.

2. Registry for Performance Metrics.  Section 5.2.2:

  o  the Measurement Task configurations, each of which needs:

      *  the Metric, specified as a URI to a registry entry; it includes
        the specification of a Measurement Method.  The registry could
        be defined by the IETF [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], locally
        by the operator of the Measurement System or perhaps by another
        standards organisation.

The framework is leaving the door open for multiple ways to define a registry, but is making reference to a specific one (still WIP)..it just causes confusion.


Neither of these comments are major, not do they take away from the technical value of the document.  Mostly suggestions to improve the clarity of what the framework is proposing.
2015-04-08
12 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-04-06
12 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-02
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-04-02
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-03-23
12 Benoît Claise Ballot has been issued
2015-03-23
12 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-03-23
12 Benoît Claise Created "Approve" ballot
2015-03-23
12 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2015-03-23
12 Benoît Claise
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 …
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 24 February 2012.

(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. It's in the 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

  Measuring broadband service on a large scale requires a description
  of the logical architecture and standardization of the key protocols
  that coordinate interactions between the components.  The document
  presents an overall framework for large-scale measurements.  It also
  defines terminology for LMAP (large-scale measurement platforms).

Working Group Summary

  The Working Group process was serious and a relative large number of
  participants participated. Some of the points that required clarification
  and further editing were related to passive monitoring and to privacy.
  ll ended in consensus behind the document as it was forwarded for
  approval and publication.

Document Quality

  The document was very carefully reviewed and discussed by a
  large number of participants in the WG, because it contains key
  information concerning the scope, architecture and components of
  the recommended solutions. Several issues were debated for many
  months, the resulting document includes a strong consensus of the
  participants about the goals (and non goals) of LMAP and the path
  to be taken by the IETF to provide a standard solution. 

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Dan Romascanu is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise 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.

I have reviewed in detail every version of this document including the
one that is now submitted.

(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.

There is a broad industry interest for this work, and for this purpose liaison
statements were exchanged with other organizations such as the BBF and
the IEEE 802. We recommend sending the IETF Last Call announcement
to these organizations and invite them to participate.

(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 concern.

(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 have been submitted.

(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 consensus is solid and the participation base is healthy in numbers.

(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.

No problems. idnits complains about one date-in-the past, three false
alarms on references, and one updated reference.

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

no need

(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.


(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

(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

(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
2015-03-13
12 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09
2015-03-13
12 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-03-13
12 Benoît Claise Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-03-12
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman.
2015-03-12
12 Naveen Khan New revision available
2015-03-09
11 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-03-02
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2015-03-02
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2015-03-01
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-03-01
11 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-03-01
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2015-03-01
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2015-02-25
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-02-25
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-02-23
11 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-02-23
11 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A framework for Large-Scale Measurement …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Large-Scale Measurement of
Broadband Performance WG (lmap) to consider the following document:
- 'A framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance
  (LMAP)'
  as Informational 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 2015-03-09. 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


  Measuring broadband service on a large scale requires a description
  of the logical architecture and standardisation of the key protocols
  that coordinate interactions between the components.  The document
  presents an overall framework for large-scale measurements.  It also
  defines terminology for LMAP (Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband
  Performance).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-02-23
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-02-23
11 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2015-02-23
11 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was generated
2015-02-23
11 Benoît Claise Ballot approval text was generated
2015-02-23
11 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was generated
2015-02-23
11 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-02-22
11 Marcelo Bagnulo New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11.txt
2015-01-14
10 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-10.txt
2014-12-15
09 Benoît Claise Notification list changed to dromasca@avaya.com, draft-ietf-lmap-framework.all@tools.ietf.org, lmap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org from lmap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-lmap-framework@tools.ietf.org
2014-12-12
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-12-12
09 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-09.txt
2014-11-20
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Radia Perlman.
2014-11-19
08 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2014-11-13
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2014-11-13
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2014-10-29
08 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu
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 …
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 24 February 2012.

(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. It's in the 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

  Measuring broadband service on a large scale requires a description
  of the logical architecture and standardization of the key protocols
  that coordinate interactions between the components.  The document
  presents an overall framework for large-scale measurements.  It also
  defines terminology for LMAP (large-scale measurement platforms).

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

Document Quality

  The document was very carefully reviewed and discussed by a
  large number of participants in the WG, because it contains key
  information concerning the scope, architecture and components of
  the recommended solutions. Several issues were debated for many
  months, the resulting document includes a strong consensus of the
  participants about the goals (and non goals) of LMAP and the path
  to be taken by the IETF to provide a standard solution. 

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Dan Romascanu is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise 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.

I have reviewed in detail every version of this document including the
one that is now submitted.

(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.

There is a broad industry interest for this work, and for this purpose liaison
statements were exchanged with other organizations such as the BBF and
the IEEE 802. We recommend sending the IETF Last Call announcement
to these organizations and invite them to participate.

(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 concern.

(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 have been submitted.

(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 consensus is solid and the participation base is healthy in numbers.

(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.

No problems. idnits complains about one date-in-the past, three false
alarms on references, and one updated reference.

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

no need

(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.


(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

(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

(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
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu State Change Notice email list changed to lmap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-lmap-framework@tools.ietf.org
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu Changed document writeup
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu Document shepherd changed to Dan Romascanu
2014-09-18
08 Dan Romascanu Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2014-08-08
08 Philip Eardley draft-ietf-lmap-framework-08.txt
2014-06-24
07 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-07.txt
2014-06-13
06 Philip Eardley
2014-05-13
05 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-05.txt
2014-03-31
04 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-04.txt
2014-02-24
03 Benoît Claise This document now replaces draft-folks-lmap-framework instead of None
2014-02-24
03 Benoît Claise Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise
2014-01-21
03 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-03.txt
2013-12-06
02 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-02.txt
2013-10-21
01 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-01.txt
2013-10-03
00 Philip Eardley New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-framework-00.txt