=== This writeup is in progress, and is not yet ready for submission to the IESG. ===
(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; this is indicated correctly. This type was selected by the group
as metrics specified by IPPM are usually published as PS and this document
provides even tighter specifications of the original metrics for assignment in the
(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 defines the set of Initial Entries for the IANA Performance
Metrics Registry (defined in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry).
The set includes, UDP Round-trip Latency and Loss,
Packet Delay Variation, DNS Response Latency and Loss, UDP Poisson
One-way Delay and Loss, UDP Periodic One-way Delay and Loss, ICMP
Round-trip Latency and Loss, and TCP round-trip Latency and Loss.
As the document provides an initial registry, the content is determined
both by initial requirements from the LMAP working group (which has
since concluded, taking a direction that no longer requires the registry)
as well as an analysis within the WG of commonly used metrics.
Mock-ups of the implementation of the base registry itself
have been prepared with IANA's help. A recent version
is available here: http://encrypted.net/IETFMetricsRegistry-106.html
Working Group Summary
The document has been discussed extensively in the WG, and has had
significant input from the community.
The document does not specify a protocol; the state of implementation
is unknown to the shepherd. The design of the registry
(in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry) was "tested" by the entries in the initial
registry, and both of these have received early IANA review together.
Brian Trammell is the Document Shepherd. Mirja Kuehlewind is the Responsible Area
(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
I have reviewed the document and it is IMO ready for publication.
(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
No reviews beyond the performance measurement community
represented in IPPM seem particularly necessary.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
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 document has strong consensus in the 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. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review necessary.
(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?
Normative reference to draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry,
which this document fills out and which will be submitted at the same time.
(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.
There are normative references to RFC 2330, as well as to two academic publications (in CACM and TMA).
(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 8126).
The whole document is essentially an IANA considerations section
populate the registry in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry. It does not
interact with any other registries.
(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.
No new registries; these are defined in draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.
(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.
No automated checks.