[bmwg] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-07
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Mon, 04 December 2006 20:38 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrKZi-0006hU-2c; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:38:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrKZg-0006cI-RQ for bmwg@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:38:04 -0500
Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrKW1-0001BS-P1 for bmwg@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:34:21 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1165264457!467188!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 3854 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2006 20:34:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh3i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2006 20:34:17 -0000
Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4KYGGG016427 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB4KY8lP016364 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:34:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acmt.att.com (acmt.mt.att.com[135.16.251.34](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20061204203407gw10010g5be>; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:34:07 +0000
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061204151912.01fd9478@att.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:34:07 -0500
To: bmwg@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 612a16ba5c5f570bfc42b3ac5606ac53
Subject: [bmwg] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-07
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
BMWG, The 4th WGLC closed without comments, and after 3 prior rounds of very active discussion, it appears that we can recognize (at least) "rough consensus" to request publication of this draft. In accordance with the process in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt here's a copy of the Document Shepherd write-up. Al bmwg co-chair >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:01:12 -0500 >To: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>, Dan Romascanu ><dromasca@avaya.com>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org >From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> >Subject: Publication Request for draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-07 > >Hi David, Dan, > >The text below is the publication request/Document Shepherd write-up >for the hash and stuffing draft. > >This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC, as is the >practice with all BMWG RFCs. > >I'll be the Document Shepherd again. > >Al > >============================================================================ > >Publication Request for Informational RFC >WG Chair Shepherding Write-up > > Title :Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device > Benchmarking > Author(s): D. Newman, T. Player > Filename: draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-07.txt > Pages : 34 > Date : 2006-11-22 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-07.txt > > > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? >Al Morton is the Document Shepherd. >He has reviewed this version of the draft and believes it is ready for >publication. >There is one typo in the Acknowledgements section: >Dan Romascanu's name is misspelled. > > (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? >Yes, the document benefited from extensive WG commentary prior to and >during 3 WGLC, with the 4th WGLC passing quietly. >We requested an early Security Directorate Review. Joe Salowey and Jeffrey >Altman reviewed version 05 of the draft and provided some comments. >No concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. > > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? >No. > > (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. >No. > > (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? >As stated above, WG review has been extensive and many people have commented >and had their concerns addressed. > > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) >No. > > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? >The boilerplate and automated nits check-out fine. >The draft conforms to the I-D guidelines in all the following ways: >- Use of network byte order in diagrams >- Content of the IANA considerations section >- Proper split of Normative/Informative references >(the Informative References are bibliographical) >- Meaningful abstract >- Meaningful security considerations >- Proper values for example addresses, names, numbers >- Proper references, particularly to non-IETF documents >- No text that will be outdated after publication >- No Protocol issues (ipv4 specificity, congestion, internationalization, > proper specification of data to be checksummed, etc) > > > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? >Yes > Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? >No > If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? >No > If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. > > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration 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 suggested a > reasonable name for the new registry? See > [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document > describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with > the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the > needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? >This document makes no requests of IANA. > > (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? >NA > > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Writeup? 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. > > Test engineers take pains to declare all factors that affect a given > measurement, including intended load, packet length, test duration, > and traffic orientation. However, current benchmarking practice > overlooks two factors that have a profound impact on test results. > First, existing methodologies do not require the reporting of > addresses or other test traffic contents, even though these fields > can affect test results. Second, "stuff" bits and bytes inserted in > test traffic by some link-layer technologies add significant and > variable overhead, which in turn affects test results. This document > describes the effects of these factors; recommends guidelines for > test traffic contents; and offers formulas for determining the > probability of bit- and byte-stuffing in test traffic. > > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? > From the initial work proposal through the final WG Last Call, there was >wide agreement that this work was important for BMWG in that it added key >testing considerations to our body of literature. > > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? >All BMWG RFCs are Informational, but they are implemented by >test equipment vendors and cited in trade publications and advertisements. >The Acknowledgements recognize individuals who have done careful reviews. >There is one publicly reported implementation, and others reported to >be in progress. > > Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? >Al Morton > Who is the Responsible Area Director? >David Kessens _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg