Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-03
(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 shown in its title page header. This draft updates 2330, which is also Informational. Although 7312 updates 2330, it does not update 2330 in every area. The updates proposed in this draft reference sections that are not mentioned in 7312, so the WG had no choice but to update 2330.
(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 memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework, RFC 2330, with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard-formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include, but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN).
Working Group Summary:
The need for this draft was raised by Brian Carpenter early in 2015. It had three versions as an individual draft before being adopted by the IPPM Working Group in July 2016. It's now in its third (-02) version. Discussion within the WG has not been contentious, it's simply been aimed at improving the quality and completeness of this draft.
This draft simply describes the aspects of IP Performance Measurement affected by the change from IPv4 to IPv6. These changes are well understood within the IPPM WG, RFC 8259 is a clear example if this.
Fred Baker and Marius Georgescu's review appear in the IPPM WG archive. There were other comments at meetings. Brian Carpenter reviewed an early version of the draft. See the ACKS.
Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee. Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.
I have read the draft carefully, it is clear and well-written, therefore ready for submission to IESG.
(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.
No, this draft is only of interest within the IPPM WG.
(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.
No problems or 'uncomfortable' feelings about it.
(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?
This draft simply explores the changes needed for IPv6 Performance Measurement, it references the relevant RFCs for that. It has no IPR disclosures, it doesn't need any.
(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?
Strong concurrence, well understood by th WG.
(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.
(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.
No such reviews are needed.
(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).
"This memo makes 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.
Cheers, Nevil Brownlee