Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track
draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-05

[Ballot comment]
Just a nit:

In Introduction, change From:
The IETF (IP Performance Metrics working group, IPPM)
To:
The IETF IP Performance Metrics working group (IPPM)

[Ballot comment]

Having just struggled with setting up tc and netem for the
first time in years this week, it'd be a fine service to
humanity if you were able to make annotated setup scripts for
your tests available, either as informative references via
some stable URL or even in an appendix. I understand if you
don't want to, but it'd be a nice thing.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if authors prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track'
  as Informational RFC

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 2014-02-27. 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 proposes to advance a performance metric RFC along the
  standards track, specifically RFC 2680 on One-way Loss Metrics.
  Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the
  primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo
  describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement
  clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and
  implemented as intended.  Two completely independent implementations
  have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2680.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680/ballot/


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

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Brian Trammell. The responsible Area Director is Spencer Dawkins.

The document defines a plan for testing implementations of RFC 2680 on one-way packet loss metrics, based upon the requirements set out in RFC 2680 itself, in order to evaluate ambiguity in RFC 2680 that may lead to interoperability problems. It also reports on the results of these tests with two independent implementation, and recommends the revision of RFC 2680 based on ambiguities found herein, with subsequent advancement of RFC 2680bis to Internet Standard.

2. Review and Consensus

The document has clear working group consensus for publication, and has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.

3. Intellectual Property

There are no IPR disclosures related to this document, and the shepherd is satisfied there is no undisclosed IPR on this document.

4. Other Points

RFC 2680bis already exists as an individual draft waiting for WG adoption; this draft was not adopted during the March 2013 rechartering of the WG, as current work on the RFC 2330 update and the IPPM performance metrics registry design team may impact the content of a future 2680bis. However, this draft has been complete for some time and is ready for publication.