Shepherd writeup
rfc8972-10

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. 

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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? 

A Proposed Standard RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. It is the proper type of RFC because this document defines optional STAMP extensions, their formats, and the theory of operation. Also, a STAMP Test Session Identifier is defined, updating the base STAMP specification [RFC8762].

(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 document describes optional extensions to Simple Two-way Active
   Measurement Protocol (STAMP) which enable measurement performance
   metrics in addition to ones supported by the STAMP base
   specification.  The document also defines a STAMP Test Session
   Identifier and thus updates RFC 8762. 

Working Group Summary:

The document has gone through sufficient discussion within the IPPM WG and has working group consensus to publish. There was no particular controversy during the WG process.

Document Quality:

The document has been a WG document for almost one year. It has been reviewed by the community within the IPPM WG and gone through several updates. 

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Yali Wang
Responsible Area Director: Martin Duke

(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 Shepherd has reviewed the latest revision of the document, followed the comments during WGLC, and joined in the discussion on the IPPM mailing list. Also, the Document Shepherd performed the review on IPR checks and Nits.

The Document Shepherd thinks the document is ready for review by the IESG for publication.

(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. The document has received several reviews, comments, and questions from IPPM WG members. All of the comments and questions have been resolved.

(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?

Confirmed.

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

No IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv

(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? 

Solid consensus according to the review and discussion on the mailing list.

(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.) 

None.

(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. 

According to the ID nits check, there is one comment, which should be OK:
https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-05.txt

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

Not relevant for the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI.

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

Yes. All references have 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? 

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. 

No. This document updates RFC8762 but does not change its status. RFC8762 has been mentioned in the abstract and introduction.

(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 IANA considerations section is clear and consistent with the body of the document. 

IANA is requested to allocate new code points for "Extra Padding", "Location", "Timestamp Information", "Class of Service", "Direct Measurement", "Access Report", "Follow-up Telemetry", "HMAC" from the "Mandatory TLV range of the STAMP TLV Type registry".

IANA has allocated the following code points from the "Synchronization Source sub-registry":
1	NTP 
2	PTP
3	SSU/BITS
4	GPS/GLONASS/LORAN-C
5	Local free-running

IANA has allocated the following code points from the "Timestamping Methods sub-registry":
1	HW Assist
2	SW local
3	Control plane

IANA has allocated the following code points from the "Return Code sub-registry":
1	Network available
2	Network unavailable

(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. 

Followings are new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations:
1) IANA is requested to create the STAMP TLV Type registry.
2) IANA is requested to create Synchronization Source sub-registry as part of the STAMP TLV Type registry.
3) IANA is requested to create Timestamping Method sub-registry as part of the STAMP TLV Type registry.
4) IANA is requested to create Return Code sub-registry as part of STAMP TLV Type 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, YANG modules, etc.

None.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

No YANG module.
Back