Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-03

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA also notes that at least one of the IANA actions described below is dependent upon the approval and publication of another document.

IANA understands that, upon approval, this document has two actions which must be completed by IANA. IANA further understands that both of these actions require the creation of new registries.

IANA QUESTION -> Where should the two new registries be located? Are they new stand-alone registries or are they sub-registries of an existing registry? If they are sub-registries of an existing registry, in which registry will they be contained?

First, a new registry is to be created called the OWAMP-Control Command Number registry. This new registry will be located in a place to be determined later (see IANA question above). The new registry will be maintained via "IETF Consensus" as defined by RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Registry

Value Description Semantics Reference
Definition
=============================
0 Reserved
1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656
2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656
3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656
4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656
5-253 Unassigned
254 Experimentation [ RFC-to-be ]
255 Reserved

Second, a new registry is to be created called the OWAMP-Modes registry. This new registry will be located in a place to be determined later (see IANA question above). The new registry will be maintained via "IETF Consensus" as defined by RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

OWAMP-Modes Registry

Bit Semantics
Pos. Description Definition Reference
==========================0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656
1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656
2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC4656
3 Reserved [RFC-to-be]
4 IKEv2-derived Shared [RFC-to-be] and Secret Key Section 5 [see-below]
5-31 Unassigned

IANA understands the reference for bit position 4 is a yet-to-be-published Internet Draft draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec. The note, [see-below] in the initial registrations is to be replaced by the proper reference upon approval of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec.

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
Protocol Parameters Engagement Manager
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active
  Measurement Protocol.  The registries allow assignment of MODE bit
  positions and OWAMP Command numbers.  The memo also requests that
  IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-
  Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry.  This
  memo updates RFC 4656.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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.

(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 describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active
Measurement Protocol.  The registries allow assignment of MODE bit
positions and OWAMP Command numbers.  The memo also requests that
IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-
Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry.  This
memo updates RFC 4656.

Working Group Summary

There was nothing unusual or controversial.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Not applicable

Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Not applicable

Personnel

The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny.  The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(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 document was reviewed by the document shepherd for which changes were suggested and implemented in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(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.

(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.

None

(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.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(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? 

It has support across the working group in general and participants
familiar with the topic support the document.

(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.

Note downward refs documented by idnits  in question #15.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 220 has weird spacing: '... Shared    thi...'

    (Using the creation date from RFC4656, updated by this document, for
    RFC5378 checks: 2006-02-15)

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
    disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
    been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
    to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
    original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
    disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
    comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(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.

No

(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.

This document updates RFC4656

(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).

As stated in the technical summary, this document requests that IANA establish
the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-Modes registry and the OWAMP
Control Command Number registry.

(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.

In the new OWAMP registries we are requiring IETF Consensus
to add new entries.

(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.

Not applicable.