Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc7747-05

(Original text included below, preserved for posterity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

This RFC is intended to be Informational, as is consistent what BMWG outputs.

(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 methodology to benchmark BGP convergence, utilizing
terminology from RFC 4098. In particular, this draft describes a methodology for
benchmarking the data plane FIB convergence performance of BGP, applying to both
IPv4 and IPv6 topologies with 3 or 4 nodes.

Working Group Summary
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The -00 version of the draft was submitted in July 2013, and with decent
feedback and discussion from the WG, the authors were able to submit a -01
document in March 2014, that moved into WGLC. At that time, a review from the
Routing Directorate provided valuable feedback, which resulted in the document
returning to the WG, and the authors revising the document based on this
feedback, and WG feedback. -02 of the draft was introduced in June 2014, and
moved to WGLC in September 2014. There've been no major issues or concerns
raised, no heated debates or serious negative stances taken against this draft.

Document Quality
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This document is in decent shape, being readable, reviewed both internally and
external to the working group, and has had attentive authors answering and
addressing incoming feedback in a timely manner, leading to a stronger, easily
consumed document.

Personnel
=-=-=-=-=-=

Sarah Banks is the document shepherd.
Joel Jaeggli 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.

As the document shepherd, I've read this draft twice over; previous to moving
this document to WGLC and becoming the shepherd, I'd reviewed and provided
comments on this draft through it's course in the Working Group. This document
is ready for publication, being well vetted and well reviewed, and comments
addressed within.

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

No concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviewed that have been performed.

(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.

The chairs/authors felt the draft could do with a review from outside of BMWG,
and as such, the Routing Area performed a review, and submitted minor
comments/concerns, which the authors addressed, prior to moving the draft into
WGLC. This review is in addition to reviews within the WG itself.

(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.

This is a fairly "safe" draft - it's well written, it's well understood, and
with comments raised during reviews addressed, the document is in a pretty
decent state and ready for publication.

(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.

No IPR claimed.

(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 claimed.

(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?

Solid consensus exists behind this document. There were/are no dissents that
the DS is aware of.

(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 major nits, but some warnings:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
     first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
     necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
     take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
     authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
     rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer.
     Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment.
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  -- The document date (October 26, 2014) is 17 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Missing Reference: 'MPLSProt' is mentioned on line 441, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'IGPData' is mentioned on line 949, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'BGPSec' is mentioned on line 1286, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol' is defined on line
     1416, but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 1431, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6412' is defined on line 1434, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
     draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-09

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

None needed.

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

See nits above.

(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).

No IANA considerations exist.

(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/NA

(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 code chunks exist - nothing to check, short of checking nits through IETF
Tools.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original text here:
Technical Summary

This document describes a methodology to benchmark BGP convergence, utilizing
terminology from RFC 4098. In particular, this draft describes a methodology for
benchmarking the data plane FIB convergence performance of BGP, applying to both
IPv4 and IPv6 topologies with 3 or 4 nodes.

Working Group Summary

The -00 version of the draft was submitted in July 2013, and with decent
feedback and discussion from the WG, the authors were able to submit a -01
document in March 2014, that moved into WGLC. At that time, a review from the
Routing Directorate provided valuable feedback, which resulted in the document
returning to the WG, and the authors revising the document based on this
feedback, and WG feedback. -02 of the draft was introduced in June 2014, and
moved to WGLC in September 2014. There've been no major issues or concerns
raised, no heated debates or serious negative stances taken against this draft.

Document Quality

This document is in decent shape, being readable, reviewed both internally and
external to the working group, and has had attentive authors answering and
addressing incoming feedback in a timely manner, leading to a stronger, easily
consumed document.

Personnel

Sarah Banks is the Document Shepherd. (sbanks@encrypted.net)
Joel Jaeggli is the Responsible AD. (joelja@bogus.com)
Back