Skip to main content

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