IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11

[Ballot comment]
Hi Gorry,

Thanks for engaging.
>
> Benoit,
>
> We think we have resolved the remaining issues and would like to propose
> text that we think could address you DISCUSS:
>
> We think our point was that tuning should not be required
> *in*the*normal*case*, not
> that they should *never* require tuning (I'm not sure we have created
> anything that
> is 100% auto-tuning).
If it was a never, then the sentence would be

  3.  AQM algorithm deployment MUST NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration parameters.

> I'm OK with his phrasing in both cases, but would
> suggest the
> words "in common use cases" should be added:
>
>
>  3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
> configuration
I believe that the "in common use case" is redundant (and somehow confusing) with the SHOULD in your proposal.
SHOULD (RFC 2119):

    3. SHOULD  This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
      may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
      particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
      carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

However, I don't want to be picky on that point. I'll let your responsible AD decide.
My main point is covered. I'll clear that DISCUSS point.
>
> parameters in common use cases.
>
> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning in common use cases.
I don't see this change in the v10.
There is an important word in here: "deployment" as opposed to "deployed" in the current 4.3 section title (4.3. AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning)
"Deployment" brings to the notion of initial deployment as opposed to "deployed".
This is the reason why I propose:

NEW:
4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require operational tuning

I hope you will include this change, but it's not DISCUSS-worth IMO.
Same remark as above regarding "AQM algorithm deployment"

Regards, Benoit

[Ballot comment]
I see relatively little, and that includes here mention that time scales for queue management and the time scale for application responsiveness to congestion signals are wildly different. e.g. one is measured in usecs the other is bounded by RTT. queue sizing and policing around abberant events, for example micro-as loops driven by a prefix withdraw isn't really dealt with at all.

[Ballot comment]
I'm quite surprised that the introduction doesn't mention the problems that high or unpredictable latency can cause with flows that are attempting to do congestion control at the ends (e.g., TCP).  If I were reading this without already knowing about that, I would assume that the goal of this document is to reduce latency for the benefit of applications that require low latency, like VoIP and gaming.  It would be nice if the introduction made mention of the issue of high latency as it affects TCP flows.

The document also talks about congestion collapse as a future risk to be prevented, but I think that this isn't telling the whole story: users of the Internet see localized congestion collapse quite frequently, and have done for quite some time.  It's essentially normal network behavior in hotels, cafes and on airplanes: anywhere where available bandwidth is substantially short of demand.  I don't think this is a problem with technical accuracy, but I think someone reading this document who isn't an expert on congestion control might not realize that this document is talking about that specific sort of failure mode as well as failures deep in the network.

I'm really happy to see this document being published.  The above comments are just suggestions based on my particular concerns about congestion, and do not reflect any degree of expertise, so if they seem exceptionally clueless you should just ignore them.

[Ballot comment]
This document does not have the pre-5378 boilerplate. Have all of the authors of 2309 actually signed the appropriate things, or does this document need the pre-5378 boilerplate?

[Ballot discuss]
Hopefully an easy DISCUSS.
  3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
      operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.

This sentence above could be understood in different ways. For example, that any configuration is wrong.
The ability to activate AQM is a good thing IMO.
The section 4.3 title is closer to what you intend to say: "AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning"
The issue is that you only define what you mean by "operational configuration" in section 4.3

Proposal:

OLD:
  3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
      operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.

NEW:
  3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or configuration parameters.

OLD:
4.3 AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning

NEW:
4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning

[Ballot comment]
- RFC 2309 introduced the concept of "Active Queue Management" (AQM), a
  > class of technologies that, by signaling to common congestion-
  controlled transports such as TCP, manages the size of queues that

Remove >


-
  Network devices SHOULD use an AQM algorithm to measure local local
  congestion

local local

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft, it looks good.  There are some tiny nits that the SecDir reviewer found that you might want to consider:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05357.html

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the hard work on this document. I have a few comments below.

-- General:
I think it would be useful to define "network devices" up front, and in particular to clarify whether endpoint devices are subsumed in this category. Are the recommendations in this document meant to apply to queues in tablet/smartphone/laptop OSes as well as in routers, switches, etc.?

-- Sec 1.2:
"instead it provides recommendations on how to select appropriate
  algorithms and recommends that algorithms should be used that a
  recommended algorithm is able to automate any required tuning for
  common deployment scenarios."

Seems like there are some extra words here.

-- Sec 3:
"There is a growing set of UDP-based applications whose congestion
      avoidance algorithms are inadequate or nonexistent (i.e, a flow
      that does not throttle its sending rate when it experiences
      congestion).  Examples include some UDP streaming applications
      for packet voice and video, and some multicast bulk data
      transport.  If no action is taken, such unresponsive flows could
      lead to a new congestion collapse.  Some applications can even
      increase their traffic volume in response to congestion (e.g. by
      adding forward error correction when loss is experienced), with
      the possibility that they contribute to congestion collapse."

Would be nice to have a citation or two in this paragraph (though I can see why you might not want to).

"Lastly, some applications (e.g. current web browsers) open a
      large numbers of short TCP flows for a single session.  This can
      lead to each individual flow spending the majority of time in the
      exponential TCP slow start phase, rather than in TCP congestion
      avoidance.  The resulting traffic aggregate can therefore be much
      less responsive than a single standard TCP flow."

I note that HTTP/2 is on its way to publication and there are a large number of existing implementations, so the characterization of "current web browsers" seems a bit off. I would suggest something like "(e.g. web browsers primarily supporting HTTP 1.1)."

-- Sec 7:
I think there's actually a really important privacy aspect that should be called out here, which is that by virtue of recommending that AQM algorithms not be dependent on specific transport or application behaviors, network devices need not gain insight into upper layer protocol information for the purpose of supporting AQM. That is, the document's explicit recommendation for algorithms to be able to operate in a transport- and application-agnostic fashion is a privacy-enhancing feature.

-- Sec 9:
I'm a little surprised that almost all of the research referenced in this document is from the 1990s, given recent attention that has been paid to this topic.

[Ballot comment]
I appreciate very much the work on this document. I'm a Yes, with some niggling.

In this text:

Abstract

  The note largely repeats the recommendations of RFC 2309, and
  replaces these after fifteen years of experience and new research.
 
I'm thinking that doesn't match the "replaces" language in section 1.4, which I think is about right. Perhaps something like

  The note replaces the recommendations of RFC 2309 based on
  fifteen years of experience and new research.

In this text:

1.1.  Congestion Collapse

  The original fix for Internet meltdown was provided by Van Jacobsen.
  Beginning in 1986, Jacobsen developed the congestion avoidance
  mechanisms [Jacobson88] that are now required for implementations of
  the Transport Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0768] [RFC1122]. 

I'm wondering if RFC 7414 would be a helpful reference here, and elsewhere in the document. I'm bemused by the use of RFC 793 as the reference for TCP later in this document, since RFC 793 TCP behaves nothing like TCP as characterized here.

I know I'm confused by the reference to RFC 768 - that's UDP, as cited correctly elsewhere in the document.

In this text:

  2.  Non-Responsive Flows

      The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] provides a minimal,
      best-effort transport to applications and upper-layer protocols
      (both simply called "applications" in the remainder of this
      document) and does not itself provide mechanisms to prevent
      congestion collapse and establish a degree of fairness [RFC5405].

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that non-responsive flows use UDP transport (especially in our tunneled world). If you guys think this is OK, I'll hold my nose, but if you wanted to say anything about "other flows that are as non-responsive as UDP transport", I'd think that would be helpful.

It certainly fits at least as well as the "large number of short-lived TCP flows that are much less responsive" paragraph that you end this section with, which probably fits better under the following list item,

  3.  Transport Flows that are less responsive than TCP
 
In this text:

  It is essential that all Internet hosts respond to loss [RFC5681],
  [RFC5405][RFC4960][RFC4340].  Packet dropping by network devices that
  are under load has two effects: It protects the network, which is the
  primary reason that network devices drop packets.  The detection of
  loss also provides a signal to a reliable transport (e.g.  TCP, SCTP)
  that there is potential congestion using a pragmatic heuristic; "when
  the network discards a message in flight, it may imply the presence
  of faulty equipment or media in a path, and it may imply the presence
  of congestion.  To be conservative, a transport must assume it may be
  the latter."  Unreliable transports (e.g. using UDP) need to
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  similarly react to loss [RFC5405]
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
would it be more correct to say "Applications using unreliable transports (e.g. UDP)"?

[Ballot comment]
The authors have acknowledged Elwyn's GEN-ART review [1] and they will integrate the comments in an updated version after the IESG review.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gHzWBxmv64q6PkbQ0AFW5q6TvpU

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-08, 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Active Queue Management and
Packet Scheduling WG (aqm) to consider the following document:
- 'IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2014-12-24. 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


  This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community
  concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance.  It
  presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and
  widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network
  devices, to improve the performance of today's Internet.  It also
  urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate
  deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that
  are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification.

  The note largely repeats the recommendations of RFC 2309, and
  replaces these after fifteen years of experience and new research.




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

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


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

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)?

Best Current Practise (BCP)

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document supercedes the earlier BCP RFC2309, which made the case for using
AQM to alleviate network collapse, and strongly suggested the "RED" would be the
appropriate mechanism. However, due to numerous operational issues with RED,
this new document is no longer pitching one particular method, and also the
reason for having AQM has changed in focus over the years.

The original document (RFC2309) was produced by the IRTF. We did ask the IRTF
if there is any issue to update their document and we got the feedback that the
IETF should go ahead. This has been clarified between the AQM chairs, the IRTF
chair, the IRSG, and the TSV ADs.


Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes



(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 is a complete rework of the recommendations to have some form of
active queue management in ideally every queue. While RFC2309 (1998) was mostly
concerned around network stability, and made recommendations which did not
appeal to operators (universal deployment of RED, which has been found to be
particularly hard to configure correctly), this revised document includes the
lessons learned over the past years. Also, the main focus is on reducing network
latency, while still delivering improvements to network stability. It contains
a number of requirements, that a modern AQM mechanism should fulfill, without
endorsing one specific method.


Working Group Summary:

There was consensus early on about the aim and technical content of this
document. However, specific wording (e.g. carrying over text from RFC2309, as
this document started off as a 2309bis draft) was objected to.

Also, the question if this document should update or obsolete the earlier BCP
(which was the result of discussions on the end2end mailing list, prior of
formation of the IRTF) has been disussed eagerly.

On the technical grounds to argue for obsoleting the earlier BCP, this document
specifically deprecates RED in favor of one of potentially several more modern
AQM algorithms. Further, a point has been made that since it is not necessary to
read RFC2309 to arrive at a sound understanding of the IETF (WG) consensus
position around AQM, and the deviation is large enough with little overlap, having
this document update 2309 was deemed less appropriate than obsoleting it.

Finally, one active participant has expressed very strong objections to some of
the points summarized above, but later commented that he will accept his
position as "in the rough". So, even though this was voiced at one point in
time, an appeal is not expected.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

As a BCP, a number of operators and developers are following up on the updated
recommendations. Newer mechanisms that fulfill the updated requirements have
been developed by multiple parties and are already being deployed by third
parties (e.g. DOCSIS PIE in Cable Modems).

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?

Yes; As a recommendation, it provides the necessary guidance when mechanisms are
developed. Also, interoperability between AQMs is not as strict as in other
areas, as many variants can be deployed along a path, as long as some over-
arching design principles are adhered to.

Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues?

John Leslie and Bob Briscoe made comments that improved the overall document
text, to align with the technical aim. However, these changes did not modify the
technical content.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Richard Scheffenegger, AQM WG co-chair


Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Martin Stiemerling, Transport 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 had thorough discussions in the WG sessions. Both technical and
wording have been honed, as witnessed also by the sheperd. There are no unresolved
issues which would preclude this from being forwarded to the IESG.


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

No; some discussions lately deviated from the document itself, and were rather
procedural in content (e.g. update / obsolete / new BCP).


(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; However, the document touches work that is done in other standards bodies
such as IEEE, CableLabs, WFA, 3GPP, ITU. Participants in those organisations
were part of the discussions and active feedback was also provided (e.g. DOCSIS-
PIE)


(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?

A substancial part of the document was updated during WGLC on the insistence of
one WG member; As they don't touch the main content, review of these sections
(2-4) by the WG has been more limited.


(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


(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 concensus on the document, with very few individuals disagreeing
with some of the text. However, that disagreement does not appear to be about
the technical parts. [[Check for -07]]


(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.)

This point has been discussed in confidence with the responsible AD.


(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 idnits issues, that weren't also discussed in the WG (RFC2309 update wording
in the abstact), with the current version what the WG has found to be most
appropriate.

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

No formal reviews necessary.


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

Yes, all references are accounted for, and are split in normative and
informative, as appropriate.

(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.

There are no downref references at the time of this writeup.

(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.

Yes; former BCP RFC2309 will be obsoleted, as the guidance given herein is
complete and self-contained.


(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 IANA actions required, no protocol updates are part of the document.


(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, etc.

This RFC does not have any sections containing formal language, thus this is
not applicable.

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)?

Best Current Practise (BCP)

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document supercedes the earlier BCP RFC2309, which made the case for using
AQM to alleviate network collapse, and strongly suggested the "RED" would be the
appropriate mechanism. However, due to numerous operational issues with RED,
this new document is no longer pitching one particular method, and also the
reason for having AQM has changed in focus over the years.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes



(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 is a complete rework of the recommendations to have some form of
active queue management in ideally every queue. While RFC2309 (1998) was mostly
concerned around network stability, and made recommendations which did not
appeal to operators (universal deployment of RED, which has been found to be
particularly hard to configure correctly), this revised document includes the
lessons learned over the past years. Also, the main focus is on reducing network
latency, while still delivering improvements to network stability. It contains
a number of requirements, that a modern AQM mechanism should fulfill, without
endorsing one specific method.


Working Group Summary:

There was consensus early on about the aim and technical content of this
document. However, specific wording (e.g. carrying over text from RFC2309, as
this document started off as a 2309bis draft) was objected to.

Also, the question if this document should update or obsolete the earlier BCP
(which was the result of discussions on the end2end mailing list, prior of
formation of the IRTF) has been disussed eagerly.

On the technical grounds to argue for obsoleting the earlier BCP, this document
specifically deprecates RED in favor of one of potentially several more modern
AQM algorithms. Further, a point has been made that since it is not necessary to
read RFC2309 to arrive at a sound understanding of the IETF (WG) consensus
position around AQM, and the deviation is large enough with little overlap, having
this document update 2309 was deemed less appropriate than obsoleting it.

Finally, one active participant has expressed very strong objections to some of
the points summarized above, but later commented that he will accept his
position as "in the rough". So, even though this was voiced at one point in
time, an appeal is not expected.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

As a BCP, a number of operators and developers are following up on the updated
recommendations. Newer mechanisms that fulfill the updated requirements have
been developed by multiple parties and are already being deployed by third
parties (e.g. DOCSIS PIE in Cable Modems).

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the
specification?

Yes; As a recommendation, it provides the necessary guidance when mechanisms are
developed. Also, interoperability between AQMs is not as strict as in other
areas, as many variants can be deployed along a path, as long as some over-
arching design principles are adhered to.

Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues?

John Leslie and Bob Briscoe made comments that improved the overall document
text, to align with the technical aim. However, these changes did not modify the
technical content.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Richard Scheffenegger, AQM WG co-chair


Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Martin Stiemerling, Transport 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 had thorough discussions in the WG sessions. Both technical and
wording have been honed, as witnessed also by the sheperd. There are no unresolved
issues which would preclude this from being forwarded to the IESG.


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

No; some discussions lately deviated from the document itself, and were rather
procedural in content (e.g. update / obsolete / new BCP).


(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; However, the document touches work that is done in other standards bodies
such as IEEE, CableLabs, WFA, 3GPP, ITU. Participants in those organisations
were part of the discussions and active feedback was also provided (e.g. DOCSIS-
PIE)


(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?

A substancial part of the document was updated during WGLC on the insistence of
one WG member; As they don't touch the main content, review of these sections
(2-4) by the WG has been more limited.


(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


(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 concensus on the document, with very few individuals disagreeing
with some of the text. However, that disagreement does not appear to be about
the technical parts. [[Check for -07]]


(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.)

This point has been discussed in confidence with the responsible AD.


(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 idnits issues, that weren't also discussed in the WG (RFC2309 update wording
in the abstact), with the current version what the WG has found to be most
appropriate.

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

No formal reviews necessary.


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

Yes, all references are accounted for, and are split in normative and
informative, as appropriate.

(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.

There are no downref references at the time of this writeup.

(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.

Yes; former BCP RFC2309 will be obsoleted, as the guidance given herein is
complete and self-contained.


(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 IANA actions required, no protocol updates are part of the document.


(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, etc.

This RFC does not have any sections containing formal language, thus this is
not applicable.

Final update to catch relationship with RFC2309 outstanding. Relationship with that RFC and intended status has reached WG consensus. No objections to technical content by participants