This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for
Data Center Benchmarking Methodology and Terminology
This version is dated 11 May 2017.
Sarah Banks is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: May 2017.
(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, as indicated on the title page. All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational, in part because they do not define protocols and the traditional conditions for standards track advancement did not apply. However, they are specifications and the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the level of requirements.
(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:
This draft establishes definitions and techniques for benchmarking within the data center. The draft defines a set of definitions, metrics, methodologies and terminologies for benchmarking in a wide variety of traffic conditions.
Working Group Summary:
There has been an extensive amount of work done on this draft, and progress made on revisions, feedback, and comments. There have been extensive conversations on, for example, "goodput". This is one of the most reviewed drafts we've had in BMWG in quite some time, and the document has undergone 2 WGLCs.
This document is ready for publication.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Sarah Banks is the Shepherd, Warren Kumari is the 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.
I've reviewed this draft at WGLC. Nits check is clean. All comments and feedback by the WG have been addressed by the Author.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This document has been thoroughly reviewed.
(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. There was extensive discussion and review and revision of this draft, over a long period of time, and the draft underwent 2 WGLCs.
(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.
(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 has been filed.
(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 disclosed.
(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?
A second WGLC was called on September 13, 2016, and closed on September 27, 2016. There has been a significant amount of feedback on this draft, reviewed in meetings and on the list, and the latest revisions of the draft include and account for feedback from IETF98. There is solid consensus that this draft is ready for publication.
(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.)
(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.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
All references are either Normative or Informative, and marked as such.
(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?
(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.
(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).
There are no IANA actions required.
(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.
(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.