Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-04

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 1 November 2019.

(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

(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:

The document defines methodologies for benchmarking EVPN and PBB-EVPN performance.  EVPN is defined in RFC 7432, and is being deployed in Service Provider networks.  Specifically this document defines the methodologies for benchmarking EVPN/PBB-EVPN convergence, data plane performance, and control plane performance.

Working Group Summary:

The doc went through WGLC 3 times. We sent the document out to BESS for review, to get SME eyeballs on the draft. At one point, the Doc Shepherd had concerns that we had too many EVPN drafts in the WG, asked the authors to work together to sort that out, which they did. No additional concerns have been raised since.

Document Quality:

This is a "how to benchmark" draft - yes there are implementations of the protocol, but those implementations specifically are out of scope for this draft per se; we are not a conformance WG.

Personnel:

Sarah Banks is the Document Shepherd
Warren Kumari 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 doc shepherd performed a number of reviews of the document, including wearing an initial "Editor" hat, to assist with language, format, and flow. The document is ready for publication; it's been reviewed by BMWG, reviewed by BESS, had SMEs present on it, and underwent 3 WGLC.

(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. 

No - because they were done with BESS ahead of this step in the process. Our sincere thanks to the BESS WG for their time.

(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. 

None.

(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 and the authors have not indicated they plan to file any.

(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? 

Solid consensus.

(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. 

Nits is generally clean. Readers can review Nits output on datatracker. There are some instances of mentions of RFCs without explicit mention. 

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

This is not that kind of document. No MIB/YANG/URI concerns here.

(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. 

Yes (from Nits tool):
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2544
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2899

(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 8126). 

No IANA considerations here.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

None - NA

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

NA
Back