Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-rmcat-wireless-tests

> 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 24 February 2012.
> 
> (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?

  An Informational RFC is being requested. This is indicated on the title
  page of the draft. An informational RFC is appropriate, since the draft
  provides guidelines for evaluating congestion control algorithms. While
  intended to be useful for implementers and designers of new algorithms,
  such evaluation is not needed for interoperability and this doesn't need
  to be standards track.

> (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 test cases for evaluating the performance of RTP
   congestion control algorithms over LTE and Wi-Fi networks. It's part of
   a set of drafts describing evaluation criteria for congestion control
   algorithms developed in the RMCAT working group.

> Working Group Summary
> 
>   Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
>   example, was there controversy about particular points or 
>   were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
>   rough?

  Some discussion early in the process, but the draft has been stable for
  some years. The test cases presented are not controversial, and have been
  used in the evaluation of algorithms developed by the WG.


> Document Quality
> 
>   Are there existing implementations of the protocol? 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?

  The test cases described were used in the evaluation of the SCReAM and
  NADA algorithms, demonstrating their utility. Sergio Mena provided a
  helpful and detailed WG last call review.

> Personnel
> 
>   Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>   Director?

  The shepherd is Colin Perkins. The responsible area directory is Mirja
  Kühlewind.

> (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.

  Colin Perkins reviewed the draft prior to WG last call in December 2018,
  and noted that the security considerations were missing, but otherwise
  found no major concerns. Sergio Mena provided a detailed review during
  WG last call, in Feb 2019, catching some issues. The draft was updated
  to address these in July 2019, just prior to IETF 105. 

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

  No concerns. The draft has received extensive review over the years,
  and has been used in the evaluation of congestion control algorithms
  by the working group.

> (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.

  The draft focusses on evaluation of congestion control algorithms. The
  RMCAT WG has appropriate experience to evaluate this. There is nothing
  needing specialist review from other areas. 

> (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.

  No concerns.

> (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.

  All authors have confirmed that no IPR disclosures are required.

> (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 filed.

> (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 strong consensus.

> (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 such discontent.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

  The idnits checker incorrectly reports issues with the references
  (the draft uses [...] to indicate ranges and lists, confusing the
  checker).

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

  No such review needed.

> (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?

  The normative references are either to RFCs or 3GPP references, except
  for draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria which is being send for publication
  in parallel to this, and to the NS3 network simulator documentation.

> (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 such references.

> (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 changes made.

> (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).

  No IANA actions.

> (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.

  No IANA actions.

> (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.

  None needed.

Back