Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
RFC 8219
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-08-12
|
08 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8219, changed abstract to 'Benchmarking methodologies that address the performance of network interconnect devices that … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8219, changed abstract to 'Benchmarking methodologies that address the performance of network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable exist, but the IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be tested using the recommendations of RFCs 2544 and 5180. The methodology also includes a metric for benchmarking load scalability.', changed pages to 30, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-08-12, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2017-08-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2017-08-04
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8219">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2017-08-01
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2017-07-31
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8219">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2017-07-19
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
|
2017-07-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
|
2017-07-03
|
08 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Last Call review by INTDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08.txt |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gabor Lencse <lencse@sze.hu>, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>, Liviu Pislaru <liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro> |
|
2017-06-12
|
08 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-06-08
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2017-06-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] I was surprised not to find any mention of RFC 4380 (Teredo) in this document. If its omission was intentional, a statement to … [Ballot comment] I was surprised not to find any mention of RFC 4380 (Teredo) in this document. If its omission was intentional, a statement to that effect (say, in the introduction) is probably warranted. |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * I am surprised that this document does not use (and does not even mention) the Well Known Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) for the algorithmic … [Ballot comment] * I am surprised that this document does not use (and does not even mention) the Well Known Prefix (64:ff9b::/96) for the algorithmic mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 on translators as specified by RFC6052. Is there a reason why this is omitted? * It is not clear from the document whether the time taken by the DNS64 resolution procedure is included in the latency measurements. It might be useful to note this. |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Section 4. (Test Setup): In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 are valid for this … [Ballot comment] Section 4. (Test Setup): In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 are valid for this document assuming that an IPv6 version of the routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used. However, rfc2544 says in several places that the packets in the appendix are just examples. The frame in C.2.6.2 is a RIP update -- but Section 11.3 references the rate at which "frames SHOULD be sent" (also in the appendix) which include OSPF and IGRP, so I'm assuming that any routing protocol used should work (if the recommendations are followed in terms of frequency, etc.). I note that rfc5180 doesn't really say anything about routing setup for IPv6 either. :-( I know this is not the document to define a complete set of (or even update) recommendations for routing setup, so my suggestion is to simply take off the reference to the appendix: In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing protocols are used. |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2017-06-07
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2017-06-06
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] I note that this document discusses using jumbo Ethernet frames up. The IEEE has a standard now for baby giant Ethernet frames - … [Ballot comment] I note that this document discusses using jumbo Ethernet frames up. The IEEE has a standard now for baby giant Ethernet frames - though there is still concern about the EtherType value used. An informative reference might be helpful. |
|
2017-06-06
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2017-06-06
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2017-06-06
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Team Will not Review Document' |
|
2017-06-06
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2017-06-05
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -7.2, Reporting Format: Is it conventional to use 2119 keywords to describe report formatting? (Or is this paragraph really about content, rather than … [Ballot comment] -7.2, Reporting Format: Is it conventional to use 2119 keywords to describe report formatting? (Or is this paragraph really about content, rather than format?) (Comment repeats for other "format" related paragraphs.) |
|
2017-06-05
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2017-05-30
|
07 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-05-29
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2017-05-11
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2017-05-11
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2017-05-11
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
|
2017-05-04
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-06-08 |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-05-02
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2017-05-01
|
07 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
|
2017-05-01
|
07 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
|
2017-04-29
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2017-04-29
|
07 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07.txt |
|
2017-04-29
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-04-29
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gabor Lencse <lencse@sze.hu>, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>, Liviu Pislaru <liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro> |
|
2017-04-29
|
07 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-04-26
|
06 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-04-21
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-04-21
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
|
2017-04-21
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ignas Bagdonas |
|
2017-04-21
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ignas Bagdonas |
|
2017-04-20
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2017-04-20
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
|
2017-04-19
|
06 | Carlos Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Al Morton | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Al Morton | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Al Morton | Requested Last Call review by GENART |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Al Morton | Requested Last Call review by SECDIR |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, Al Morton … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06.txt> (Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) to consider the following document: - 'Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies' <draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06.txt> 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 2017-05-02. 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 There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be very well tested using the recommendations of RFC2544 and RFC5180. The methodology also includes a metric for benchmarking load scalability. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Al Morton | As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06 (This version is dated 24 February 2012.) (1) What type … As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06 (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? Informational, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational. (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 Benchmarking WG has treated both IP address families in separate RFCs. This document targets IPv6 transition technologies. It first divides the different mechanisms into four categories, and avoids separate procedures for each category. Dual-stack hosts can be benchmarked using the existing methods. The remaining categories are encapsulation, single translation and double translation mechanisms. The benchmarking tests can provide insights about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going through the IPv6 transition process. Working Group Summary Once the Working Group agreed on the approach taken in this draft, development of the draft was straightforward and consensus was smooth. Document Quality Review of key v6 experts was obtained, see Acknowledgements. Personnel Al Morton in the Document Shepherd. Warren Kumari is the Responsible AD. (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 shepherd has reviewed the document many times, and the current version is ready for PUB. Note that nits runs will complain about example IP addresses, BMWG has its own address space allocated for lab testing. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, although I'm interested to see the INT Area Directorate review if there is one. (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. (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. (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. Yes, every author has 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 as of April 3, 2017. (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? Quite a few WG members were active in discussions over several years, resulting in feedback that the authors executed and smooth consensus followed. (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 particular conflicts, all comments were constructive and taken that way. (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. nits run is clean, noting that BMWG has its own address space for testing, and the nits checker does not yet recognize our exception to address space requirements. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, and divided appropriately. (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 other docs affected. (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 5226). There are no requests for IANA. (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. N/A (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. N/A |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06.txt |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gabor Lencse <lencse@sze.hu>, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>, Liviu Pislaru <liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro> |
|
2017-04-18
|
06 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-04-07
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2017-04-04
|
05 | Al Morton | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2017-04-04
|
05 | Al Morton | As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05 (This version is dated 24 February 2012.) See @@@@ for … As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05 (This version is dated 24 February 2012.) See @@@@ for 2 editorial issues, below (6, 11). (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? Informational, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational. (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 Benchmarking WG has treated both IP address families in separate RFCs. This document targets IPv6 transition technologies. It first divides the different mechanisms into four categories, and avoids separate procedures for each category. Dual-stack hosts can be benchmarked using the existing methods. The remaining categories are encapsulation, single translation and double translation mechanisms. The benchmarking tests can provide insights about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going through the IPv6 transition process. Working Group Summary Once the Working Group agreed on the approach taken in this draft, development of the draft was straightforward and consensus was smooth. Document Quality Review of key v6 experts was obtained, see Acknowledgements. Personnel Al Morton in the Document Shepherd. Warren Kumari is the Responsible AD. (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 shepherd has reviewed the document many times, and the current version is ready for PUB. Note that nits runs will complain about example IP addresses, BMWG has its own address space allocated for lab testing. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, although I'm interested to see the INT Area Directorate review if there is one. (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. (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. One small concern: on this read-through, I noticed that the work "tentative" is used in a few places that were appropriate in during draft development, but should now be replaced with a more positive and certain adjective (or deleted). @@@@ I think we can deal with this during AD review. (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. Yea, every authors has 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 as of April 3, 2017. (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? Quite a few WG members were active in discussions over several years, resulting in feedback that the authors executed and smooth consensus followed. (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 particular conflicts, all comments were constructive and taken that way. (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. @@@@ One nit to deal with during AD review. == Unused Reference: 'RFC2647' is defined on line 1036, but no explicit reference was found in the text (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, and divided appropriately. (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 other docs affected. (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 5226). There are no requests for IANA. (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. N/A (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. N/A |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05 (This version is dated 24 February 2012.) See @@@@ for … As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05 (This version is dated 24 February 2012.) See @@@@ for one open issue, below (IPR). (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? Informational, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational. (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 Benchmarking WG has treated both IP address families in separate RFCs. This document targets IPv6 transition technologies. It first divides the different mechanisms into four categories, and avoids separate procedures for each category. Dual-stack hosts can be benchmarked using the existing methods. The remaining categories are encapsulation, single translation and double translation mechanisms. The benchmarking tests can provide insights about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going through the IPv6 transition process. Working Group Summary Once the Working Group agreed on the approach taken in this draft, development of the draft was straightforward and consensus was smooth. Document Quality Review of key v6 experts was obtained, see Acknowledgements. Personnel Al Morton in the Document Shepherd. Warren Kumari is the Responsible AD. (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 shepherd has reviewed the document many times, and the current version is ready for PUB. Note that nits runs will complain about example IP addresses, BMWG has its own address space allocated for lab testing. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, although I'm interested to see the INT Area Directorate review if there is one. (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. (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. One small concern: on this read-through, I noticed that the work "tentative" is used in a few places that were appropriate in during draft development, but should now be replaced with a more positive and certain adjective (or deleted). @@@@ I think we can deal with this during AD review. (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. @@@@@ TBD, mail sent. (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 as of April 3, 2017. (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? Quite a few WG members were active in discussions over several years, resulting in feedback that the authors executed and smooth consensus followed. (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 particular conflicts, all comments were constructive and taken that way. (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. One nit to deal with during AD review. == Unused Reference: 'RFC2647' is defined on line 1036, but no explicit reference was found in the text (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, and divided appropriately. (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 other docs affected. (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 5226). There are no requests for IANA. (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. N/A (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. N/A |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | Changed document writeup |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2017-04-03
|
05 | Al Morton | Changed document writeup |
|
2017-03-29
|
05 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt |
|
2017-03-29
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-03-29
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gabor Lencse <lencse@sze.hu>, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>, Liviu Pislaru <liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro> |
|
2017-03-29
|
05 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-03-11
|
04 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-98: bmwg Thu-0900 |
|
2017-03-01
|
04 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-04.txt |
|
2017-03-01
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-03-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gabor Lencse <lencse@sze.hu>, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>, Liviu Pislaru <liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro> |
|
2017-03-01
|
04 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-01-06
|
03 | Al Morton | Last Call completed 12/24/2016 with minor comments. Also please check nits, especially: Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: … Last Call completed 12/24/2016 with minor comments. Also please check nits, especially: Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC 2544' is mentioned on line 581, but not defined |
|
2017-01-06
|
03 | Al Morton | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
|
2017-01-06
|
03 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
|
2016-12-01
|
03 | Al Morton | ends Dec 24, 2016 |
|
2016-12-01
|
03 | Al Morton | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
|
2016-12-01
|
03 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2016-12-01
|
03 | Al Morton | Notification list changed to "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com> |
|
2016-12-01
|
03 | Al Morton | Document shepherd changed to Al Morton |
|
2016-11-09
|
03 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-97: bmwg Tue-0930 |
|
2016-10-27
|
03 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-03.txt |
|
2016-10-27
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2016-10-27
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Gabor Lencse" <lencse@sze.hu>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, "Marius Georgescu" <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> |
|
2016-10-27
|
02 | Marius Georgescu | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-07-06
|
02 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-02.txt |
|
2016-04-04
|
01 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-95: bmwg Thu-1000 |
|
2016-03-16
|
01 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01.txt |
|
2015-11-04
|
00 | Al Morton | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2015-11-04
|
00 | Al Morton | This document now replaces draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking instead of None |
|
2015-10-14
|
00 | Marius Georgescu | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-00.txt |