Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-ippm-otwamp-on-lag

# 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?

It represents a fairly broad agreement among working group members that this
work is good and needed. 

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

The one point of controversy was around the applicability or rather the wording of
this draft. Micro-sessions could be useful in more cases than measuring LAG groups
and to be able to measure LAG groups you need a very specific deployment.  There
were suggestions to remove all mentions of LAG from the document and generalize
the concept. 

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.)

No.

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)?

There is no implementation status section in the document. But email
exchange between the authors and the Shepherd has provided the following 
information:

The protocol defined in the document has been implemented by Huawei, ZTE
and New H3C. China Mobile has wide field deployment.

## 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.

This document proposes small changes to protocols defined in the IPPM WG.
No need for external reviews has been identified. 

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?

There is a real need for being able to perform active measurements of 
individual LAG members for improved traffic steering.

The text is clear and concise except for a few nits outlined below. 

The document covers most of what is needed to be considered complete: a clear
introduction, explanation of the concept of Micro Sessions on LAG and the necessary
extensions to O/TWAMP to support micro sessions. It might be useful to add a bit 
more text about deployment constraints of this solution. For instance, whether senders
and reflectors need to be directly connected to the LAG.  Furthermore, sections 3.1 and
4.1 state that the document assumes that servers and receivers/reflectors are located on
the same endpoint. A focused section on applicability or deployment considerations 
could be helpful.

Since the first iteration of this check the authors have updated the document with an
applicability section. The section describes the setup procedures in a bit more detail.

The technical solution looks technically sound. It introduces new commands and extends
existing packet formats.

With some small improvements I think the document is ready to be handed off to the 
responsible AD. 

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?

No such issues are identified. 

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?

Proposed Standard. This is a small extension to a mature and widely deployed 
protocol. It is intended to go into production in live networks. Proposed 
Standard seems to be an appropriate RFC type. 

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.

Through email exchange with the authors the shepherd has been made aware 
of one IPR that relates to this draft that has not yet been declared. The author
in question indicated that they will promptly submit a formal IPR declaration.

A formal IPR declaration has now been made:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6115/
Since the declaration was made after the WGLC had finished the WG was 
given a chance to provide new feedback on the document. No concerns
with progressing the document were raised. 

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.

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.)

A few nits have been resolved since the first version of this review. 

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

One such case has been resolved since the first version of this writeup.

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.

One such case has been resolved since the first version of this writeup.

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?

N/A

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 RFCs will change status by publishing this document. 

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]).

The section looks good. It requests allocation of new command types. The 
registries are clearly identified. 


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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
Back