This is a publication request for:
ISSU Benchmarking Methodology
Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form.
(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 Stds 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:
Many networking functions require operating software maintenance
during their useful life, and some require update on a frequent-enough
basis that there may be an operational challenge to keep sufficient
service capacity on-line due to the need to schedule upgrades during
quiet periods. In response, network function developers have devised ways
minimize the operational impact of upgrades. The methodology of this memo
assesses the affect of a software update on dataplane traffic.
Working Group Summary:
Since this proposed the assessment of an operational characteristic
rather than measuring the usual benchmarking dimensions (how big? how many?),
there was considerable discussion to frame the problem so that
BMWG could adopt the work and relate it to existing methods.
Once the scope and purpose were clear, inclusion in re-chartering,
adoption and consensus followed very smoothly. The BMWG believes
this draft serves a useful purpose for the industry.
Some of the major manufacturers whose products will be measured are
represented among the co-authors, and among those who supported the
draft through review.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Al Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is 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.
The shepherd has reviewed the drafts several times, and his comments are
in the BMWG list archive.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews 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.
(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
No concerns, this is still a valuable memo, as mentioned above.
(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?
There are No outstanding IPR disclosures, according to the authors.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
Although the comments and review intensity was highly variable,
it now appears that the WG is satisfied.
The first WGLC was completed on March 2015 with comments.
The second WGLC was completed on April 2015 with minor comments.
(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.
No nits issues.
(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?
(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).
No requests of IANA.
(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.