Responsiveness under Working Conditions
draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness-08

# 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 there are slightly different camps, some more interested in IOAM than end-to-end active measurement protocols and vice versa.
Within the group of interested people this work had broad agreement.

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

Early on there were discussions around metric contributions from the hosts and applications as opposed to solely measuring the network.
This topic is adequately addressed in the document according to WG consensus and the opinion of the shepherd. 

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 are a number of both open- and closed source implementations reported in the "Additional Resources" section of the Datatracker page.
There is also a community Wiki where implementations can be reported. A link to the WiKi can be found in the "Additional Resources" Datatracker page.

## 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.

There is no close interaction with other working groups. No external reviews have occurred.
However, since this document does discuss matters of congestion control, the use of parallel transport connections to saturate paths and active queue management it will be important with a proper TSVART review.

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.

The document proposes a new well-known URI. Such a registration requires review by designated expert(s) assigned by IESG (see bullet 21 below).

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 definitely need for this document, it provides valuable enhancements to the field of network quality estimation, with a strong focus on end-user perceived quality.
There are some nits and editorial issues as described below, but aside from that it is a well written document, properly designed and ready to be handed off.

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?

n/a

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?

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.

Per discussion with all authors there are no known IPRs that apply to this document.

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.)

Nits and minor issues discovered during shepherd review:

Consider adding a "Conventions and Definitions" subsection prior to 1.1 with appropriate text and normative reference to RFC 2119.

The reference to TCP is outdated in section 3, consider changing to RFC 9293.

Section 4.2: "Experience has shown that the default values for these parameters allow for a low runtime for the test and produce accurate results in a wide range of environments."  - A reference to results would be useful if available.

Section 4.3:
"tcp_f, tls_f, http_f and http_s are all measured in milliseconds".  Call me a purist but I'd argue that one should try to stick to MKS system (meter, kilogram, second) as much as possible. It is perfectly OK to encode protocol headers as milliseconds, nanoseconds or whatever but I think that measurement output should be in MKS to avoid confusion. I can make an exception regarding the RPM metric as it rings well with "Revolutions per Minute" and can then perhaps be easier to understand for the general public. But given my general nit, the equation is then
Responsiveness = 60.0 /
  (1/6*(TM(tcp_f) + TM(tls_f) + TM(http_f)) + 1/2*TM(http_s)

Section 7.1 and 7.2: consider using example.{com | org | net | edu} or the .example top domain for all the examples.



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

no

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]).

The document proposes a well-known URI and a new service name, sections 9.1 and 9.2 request registrations in the "well-known URI" registry and the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" separately.

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.

The Well-known URI registry registers new URIs on the advice of one or more IESG appointed Designated Experts.
No particular guidance is given in the IANA section, but section 7.1 describes the intended use of the well-known URI.


[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/

Changed document external resources from:

github_org https://github.com/network-quality/
github_repo https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness (Go Client Implementation)
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/server (Server Implementation)
wiki https://github.com/network-quality/community/wiki

to:

github_org https://github.com/network-quality/
github_repo https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
related_implementations https://github.com/FelixGaudin/speedtest-RPM/tree/master (librespeed implementation)
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness (Go Client Implementation)
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/server (Server Implementation)
related_implementations https://keith.github.io/xcode-man-pages/networkQuality.8.html (macOS Client Implementation)
wiki https://github.com/network-quality/community/wiki

Changed document external resources from:

related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness (Go Client Implementation)
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/server (Server Implementation)

to:

github_org https://github.com/network-quality/
github_repo https://github.com/network-quality/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/goresponsiveness (Go Client Implementation)
related_implementations https://github.com/network-quality/server (Server Implementation)
wiki https://github.com/network-quality/community/wiki