Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark

(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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/referencedby/>. 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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2557/>. See: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Ejamw0meph6w25jwvoBcJQKxCso> Before submitting this document for publication, we run the following IPR call <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/PjNnqiZV1mxHQayOqdzjqsTH0XU>. 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 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3071/>. (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.

Back