[BEHAVE] draft-ietf-behave-dccp as BCP
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 27 October 2008 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <behave-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: behave-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-behave-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE0F3A6B2E; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED893A6B60 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JaDFBEfo0EjL for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4F93A6AD0 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,492,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="183366895"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2008 15:55:34 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9RFtZsO029974 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:35 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9RFtYr2019037 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:55:35 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>
References:
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:55:34 -0700
Message-ID: <01a801c9384c$72e77090$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To:
Thread-Index: AckYQ0LBnKoRYWK4S92hrl4bdPZh2wAAAY2wCAIxF8A=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=8728; t=1225122935; x=1225986935; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20draft-ietf-behave-dccp=20as=20BCP |Sender:=20; bh=C5UsoW/RAquqdCBSnn+bhmsRwDtYCsxCHSApXS47ZnI=; b=U3U/PsXSljwiGfT7ANzcVVVBg1dASze++MfwNVy0b8P7jfSlmJ8mGp4rRw JLIxOjxpSO1ZzrgAl9eeB7tgxggAZv86OjLK5SXeZbpfRGAeQK1N8G64FAKJ PPzAkTRUx0;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Subject: [BEHAVE] draft-ietf-behave-dccp as BCP
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: behave-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: behave-bounces@ietf.org
Magnus just pointed out the intended status for this document is supposed to be BCP -- not proposed standard. My write up said 'standards track', which is vague between BCP and proposed standard. To clarify: draft-ietf-behave-dccp is going to be a BCP, along with similar documents that BEHAVE has published (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.). Sorry about that, -d > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:29 PM > To: 'Behave WG' > Subject: FW: pub request, draft-ietf-behave-dccp-02.txt > > FYI. > > -d > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:29 PM > To: 'iesg-secretary@ietf.org'; 'Magnus Westerlund' > Subject: pub request, draft-ietf-behave-dccp-02.txt > > Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-behave-dccp-02.txt > date: 16-Sep-2008 > > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? > > Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com > > 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? > > Yes. > > > (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? > > No concerns. > > > (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? > > The WGLC was done in conunction with the DCCP working group. > > > (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. > > No concerns. > > > > (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 solid WG consensus behind this document; many of its > recommendations are derived from BEHAVE's UDP document (RFC4787) and > TCP document (draft-ietf-behave-tcp). > > > (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.) > > There has been no discontent. > > > (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. > > Yes. > > Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? > > Yes. > > If the document > does not already indicate its intended status at the top of > the first page, please indicate the intended status here. > > intended status: Standards Track > > > (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]. > > All references are verified by the document shepherd, and are good. > > > (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? > > There are no IANA actions for this document. > > > (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? > > The document contains no 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 > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. > > > This document defines a set of requirements for DCCP-capable NATs > that would allow certain applications, such as streaming applications > to operate consistently. > > > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in the WG process that is > worth noting? > For example, was there controversy about > particular points > or were there decisions where the consensus was > particularly rough? > > Nothing worth noting. > > > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the > protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? > > Unknown. > > > 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? > > They are listed in the acknowledgements section. > > 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? > > This document did not include such reviews, and doesn't need one. > > > Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? > > Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com > > Who is the > Responsible Area Director? > > Magnus Westerlund, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > > If the document requires IANA > experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries > in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' > > No experts are needed. > > > _______________________________________________ Behave mailing list Behave@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave