Shepherd Template: 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested:
Intended status: Informational.
It is Informational largely because it is not anything else -- it is not a
Standard, is not a BCP, it is neither Experimental, nor Historic. It does
however provide information useful to the general Internet community /
implementors.
(2) Document Announcement Write-Up:
Technical Summary:
This draft explores some mechanisms useful for achieving optimal use of
bandwidth in wired networks that make extensive use of LAG/ECMP techniques for
bandwidth scaling.
Working Group Summary:
There was no major drama in the WG related to this document.
The document received significant review / revision before being adopted.
Document Quality:
The document is well written and easy to follow.
A number of authors indicated that their employers are implementing, or have
plans to implement this. There was some discussion at adoption time regarding
if implementation advice is appropriate work for the WG. Consensus was on the
side of adoption. There was also (primarily off-list) discussion that
implementations should expose per-interface queue length. This information
would make the technique in the draft more useful and could allow one to avoid
placing traffic on interfaces that have long queues for some reason. While this
would make the technique better, interface counters provide sufficient
information to make the technique useful.
Personnel:
Warren Kumari is the Document Shepherd. Benoit Claise is the Responsible Area
Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. The document shepherd was not tracking the document as it
progressed through the WG. He has however gone back and read the archives,
reviewed the draft, etc.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No. There was significant discussion on
document (primarily before adoption).
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective? 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? 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?
Yup. There was a delay submitting this while awaiting positive ACKs, but all
good now.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
There were IPR disclosures filed on earlier versions of the document
(draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-07). The IPR issue was
discussed during the adoption call. The offending text was removed in
draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-08 and then the document was
adopted. An updated IPR disclosure was filed, stating: "All IPR related
material have been removed from the latest version of the draft"
(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?
There is good consensus. The WG is not very active, so there were not a huge
number of responses, but they were largely supportive.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
Nope!
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
There is no submission date in the document. It *appears* that this is because
there are 6 authors, and so xml2rfc (or whatever was used) couldn't fit it in.
I think that this can be dealt with by the RFC Editor. There are (as always)
minor grammatical / formatting nits (such as an extra period, etc). These can
be (IMO) handled by the RFC Ed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria.
None needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes. All are informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement? Nope.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
Nope.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Nope.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. The IANA Considerations section says: "This memo includes no request
to IANA." The document shepherd reviewed this for consistency with the body of
the document multiple times, carefully checking the spelling, grammar and even
text kerning. He briefly thought that it was in a different font, but then
realized that a: it's all ASCII and b: he needs a nap. (It's fine).
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. None.
(19) Describe checks to validate formal language.
No formal language exists.