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?
Proposed Standard, which is appropriate for a specification of a standard way
to measure and report maximum IP-layer capacity. The status is indicated in the
header.
(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 memo revisits the problem of Network Capacity metrics first
examined in RFC 5136. The memo specifies a more practical Maximum
IP-layer Capacity metric definition catering for measurement
purposes, and outlines the corresponding methods of measurement.
Working Group Summary:
The working group has consensus to publish this document. There was no
particular controversy in the working group regarding this document, but the
group did provide useful and detailed feedback and review.
The IESG did provide feedback that led to substantial revisions, and a second
working group last call on the revision had WG consensus.
Document Quality:
This document represents a standardized definition of concepts that have
existed and been documented informationally previously (RFC 5136). This
document covers the background and motivation for providing a clearer
definition of the metric and method for IP capacity.
The document received detailed review from several (4+) involved working group
members, which improved the quality and clarity of the document.
Personnel:
Tommy Pauly is the Document Shepherd. Martin Duke 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 shepherd has reviewed the document since before its adoption, and has
tracked the updates. The shepherd believes this version is ready to forward to
the IESG. There are a few nits (see below), but those can be addressed with any
AD review comments.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns; the document has received a good amount of review, among the more
detailed for an IPPM document for the time it was in the group.
(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, the IPPM WG has the correct expertise for this topic.
(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 concerns.
(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?
Confirmed.
(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 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?
The consensus for this document represented various different communities in
IPPM, and was a strong 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.
There is one nit around updating the boilerplate for RFC2119 language.
There are also several normative references to Informational RFCs that should
be updated to informative. RFC 2330RFC 2544RFC 3148RFC 5136RFC 6815RFC
7312RFC 7594RFC 7799RFC 8337RFC 8468
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, but some need updating (see above).
(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 (see above). These likely should be updated.
(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 status changes.
(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.
(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 applicable.
(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?
No YANG module.