# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
As usual in IPPM the consensus represents a subset of the working group, but
there is strong concurrence within this group and no pushback from other
IPPM participants.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No real controversy that I have seen. The document is a merge of two
different documents with separate proposals for loss measurements. All
proposals are described and the various combinations of them are discussed.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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.)
Not to my knowledge.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
While this is not a protocol document per se, there are implementations of
the mechanisms described in the document.
Akamai and Orange have implemented setting and reading of L and Q bits for
loss measurements for QUIC traffic.
The open source tool spindump by Ericsson research contains logic for reading
bits of most proposals in this document.
Telecom Italia have implemented setting of delay, RT-loss etc in a forked QUIC
implementation. They have also extended spindump and integrated it in
measurement tools.
Huawei have expressed interest in implementing mechanisms described in the
document.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
The mechanisms are designed to be as protocol independent as possible but
there are examples such as the L bit (section 3.2) which is directly related
to transport layer loss detection where a review from a TSV expert could
potentially be beneficial.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
n/a
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?
n/a
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
n/a
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document in its current form is almost ready to be handed off to the
responsible AD. The main issue that remains is the number of authors.
A few nits and reference issues should be addressed as well.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
This document is not a protocol specification per se so none really applies
here. Section 2.2.3 describes the use of a timer, but there are no risks
of creating synchronization effects or changing traffic patterns.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended status is Informational which I beleive is the right choice for
this document. It describes a set of mechanisms in a protocol agnostic way
with the intention to be used as input for specific protocol implementations
such as QUIC or CoAP. It does not make sense for this document to use
normative language.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Authors and active collaborators have been asked about their knowledge of
any IPRs beyond what has already been disclosed.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes, the authors have shown their willingness to be listed as such. The
total number of authors is 8, this is because the document is a merge of two
separate drafts with different sets of authors, all of the authors have made
substantial contributions to the document and it is therefore difficult to
reduce the number of authors at this point in the process.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The TCP reference points to the obsolete RFC 793 and should be replaced with
RFC 9293.
Another nit the authors could consider is the naming of references.
Currently there is a mix of descriptive names and RFC XX, a consistent
naming scheme would improve readability.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The use of normative and informative references in this document is a bit
mixed.
In section 3.5:
The ConEx and ConExTCP referenes should be informative rather than normative
as they describe related mechanisms.
There is an informative reference to RFC9000 (QUIC-TRANSPORT) in sections 5
and 6.1.
Since section 6.1 provides proposals on changing the packet header defined
in the referred document it should be more appropriate to make it a
normative reference.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
n/a
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
no
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
no
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
no
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
This document does not contain any requests to IANA
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
n/a
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/