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, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational.
The status is correctly indicated on the title pages.
(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 provides benchmarking terminology and methodology for
next-generation network security devices including next-generation
firewalls (NGFW), next-generation intrusion prevention systems
(NGIPS), and unified threat management (UTM) implementations. This
document aims to improve the applicability, reproducibility, and
transparency of benchmarks and to align the test methodology with
today's increasingly complex layer 7 security centric network
application use cases. The main areas covered in this document are
test terminology, test configuration parameters, and benchmarking
methodology for NGFW and NGIPS.
Working Group Summary:
Consensus for these drafts required several WGLC which prompted
careful review and further comments. The scope of the document was
appropriately tightened during review. The process to achieve
consensus was long but smooth, and at no time was there sustained
controversy.
Document Quality:
There are at least two existing implementations of the test methods described
in the memo, both full and partial. Many layers of review contributed to the
quality of the document (authors, external NetSecOpen organization, and many
working group participants sharing comments on bmwg-list).
Personnel:
Al Morton 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.
The Doc Shepherd has reviewed this memo many times during development, and seen
his comments addressed.
(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
(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.
Review of the "next-generation" adjective prompted discussion, but the authors
found that this adjective is in common use with the FW and NGIPS devices that
are the target of this work. Also, the adjective helps to distinguish this work
from the devices covered in the RFC 3511 time-frame.
(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?
I think that most of teh WG understands this document's goals and methods, and
many members have reviewed the document in detail, according to their
experience. The WG consensus is now clear.
(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.
The current nits-check is below, with [acm] comments:
idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021)
/tmp/idnits22257/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-10.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
[acm]
this is ok, BMWG's addresses are used.
/tmp/idnits31522/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-10_1_.txt(2895):
update_references( [RFC5180] and the IPv4 address block 198.18.0.0/15 has
been allocated)
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
[acm]
this is ok, BMWG's addresses are used.
/tmp/idnits31522/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-10_1_.txt(2899): Found
possible IPv6 address '2001:2::' in position 138 in the paragraph; this doesn't
match RFC 3849's suggested 2001:DB8::/32 address range or RFC 4193's Unique
Local Address range FC00::/7.
--> The IANA has assigned IPv4 and IPv6 address blocks in [RFC6890] that
have been registered for special purposes. The IPv6 address block
2001:2::/48 has been allocated for the purpose of IPv6 Benchmarking [RFC5180]
and the IPv4 address block 198.18.0.0/15 has been allocated for the purpose
of IPv4 Benchmarking [RFC2544]. This assignment was made to minimize the
chance of conflict in case a testing device were to be accidentally connected
to part of the Internet.
-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3511, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
[acm]
Fixed
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.
[acm] this is ok, Section 2 provides the correct boilerplate.
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
-- The document date (September 2021) is 31 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616
(Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
[acm]
Updated
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
NA
(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?
All normative refs are stable/RFCs.
(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.
RFC 3511 will be made Obsolete
(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).
The draft makes no specific request of IANA, and now says that first.
(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.
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, YANG modules, etc.
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