Reliable Server Pooling Policies
RFC 5356

IANA Last Call comments:

IANA has questions:

We interpreted this document to read that policies 0x00000000 and
0x40000000 are not available for assignment, but the other places
you marked "reserved by IETF" ARE available for assignment. Can
you please verify that this interpretation is correct?

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
registry "RSerPool Policy Type" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: Specification Required

Initial contents of this registry will be:

Note: The format of the policy type value is defined as follows:

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|A| Policy Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

o X: If set to 1, the policy is user-defined and not standardized.
All standards policies reserved by the IETF use X=0.
o A: If set to 1, the policy is adaptive. Otherwise, it is non-
adaptive.
o Policy Number: The actual number of the policy.

Registry:

Value Policy Reference
----- --------- ---------
0x00000000 Reserved [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000001 Round Robin [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000002 Weighted Round Robin [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000003 Random [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000004 Weighted Random [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000005 Priority [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x00000006-0x3fffffff Unassigned [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000000 Reserved [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000001 Least Used [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000002 Least Used with Degradation [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000003 Priority Least Used [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000004 Randomized Least Used [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x40000005-0x7fffffff Unassigned [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]
0x80000000-0xffffffff Reserved for Private Use (non-standard policy) [RFC-rserpool-policies-08]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

RFC 4858 Writeup for Rserpool Policies

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

No Document Shepherd has been appointed for this document, the
Working Group Chairs are taking responsibility for reviewing and
Forwarding the document.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by key WG members.

We have had a number of outside reviews for Rserpool documents, in particular some detailed review and comments from Scott Bradner.  This particular document describes a number of methods of applying the basic protocols (ENRP and ASAP) to achieve different pool usage policies, and as such was felt not to need detailed outside review.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No concerns that we know of.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There are no IPR filings on the document.

  (1.e)  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 WG consensus on the document.

  (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise objected.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Nit checker has been run on the document successfully.  The only defects found were references which will be updated by the RFC editor in the normal course of final editing.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are split as required. 

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

This draft defines protocol extensions requiring IANA registration, defines initial values to be registered and specifies that �specification required� policy is to be applied for new registrations, in accordance to RFC 2434. 

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There are no sections written in a formal language.

  (1.k)  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 draft defines methods of applying the Rserpool protocols in order to achieve a variety of different pool usage policies.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group process was constrained by the relatively small number of people actively involved (although those involved were committed to doing implementations of the protocols).  Otherwise there was little controversy within the group.

Document Quality

There are multiple implementations of both ENRP and ASAP protocols, thanks to participants.  However, there are no vendors that have indicated plans for implementation.  Based on this and the limited number of participants, Experimental track seems appropriate.  We received detailed comments and review from Scott Bradner and his help was greatly appreciated.

Personnel

Document Shepherding is being provided by the Working Group chairs, Maureen Stillman and Lyndon Ong.  Responsible Area Director is Magnus Westerland.