[bmwg] Document writeup for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02
Bill Cerveny <bmwg@wjcerveny.com> Sun, 22 April 2012 20:29 UTC
Return-Path: <bmwg@wjcerveny.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71F421F8585 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lEYlYAu1rv7d for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4E721F8575 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9037C2145A for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:29:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to :mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=T5bVpgtNg/CzffDLwO5QEDmlmYI=; b=pRd kv1ZyIMgls8maqRoSbjmyMz4zUnUHn9joPRx9DgCu7hIYrqKGQ+nlLLj5L5UjMmK I5Elys/CP7NR+RzSYVgy5B15MRZOCzFHM7i05dxokaxVv3xLHqN/hhNfLBfI5TWA 2+zJQL5w9SAF9jP5k6xa3mSFZPnvQ7pNlzG9FZME=
X-Sasl-enc: VQ3IypxnY+4k5LZ/ZZCxTbvJvfl9s7WG1HmNPg3OK/e5 1335126554
Received: from [10.1.14.64] (unknown [204.181.64.8]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E5B14827C6 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:29:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Cerveny <bmwg@wjcerveny.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:31:19 -0400
Message-Id: <90865B1A-BE86-4C77-AE3D-5813A45767AC@wjcerveny.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: [bmwg] Document writeup for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:29:16 -0000
Below is the document write-up for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02, "RFC 2544 Applicability Statement: Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful", which has been submitted for publication. Regards, Bill Cerveny Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02 (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, as indicated on the title page. All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational, in part because they do not define protocols and the traditional conditions for standards track advancement did not apply. However, they are specifications and the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the level of requirements. (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 Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has been developing key performance metrics and laboratory test methods since 1990, and continues this work at present. Recent application of the methods beyond their intended scope is cause for concern. This memo clarifies the scope of RFC 2544 and other benchmarking work for the IETF community. Working Group Summary Working group consensus was achieved in a single WGLC, after allowing a year for review and many useful comments and exchanges. Document Quality The single-sentence message of this memo was clear from first publication. Most comments helped to make the wording more concise. Personnel Document Shepherd: Bill Cerveny <wcerveny@wjcerveny.com> Area Director: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> (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 document shepherd has reviewed this document three times. There are no outstanding issues, as far as the document shepherd is concerned. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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. There are no specific concerns or issues that the document shepherd has with this document. (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. Each author has confirmed that there are no known IPR concerns, nor are any IPR disclosures required. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (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? Many WG members have reviewed this draft, including long-time participants, new participants, and (most importantly) participants who work at companies most affected by the statements in this memo. WG consensus was called by Area Director Ron Bonica, since the current chair and *all past chairs* are co-authors. (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 appeals have been threatened. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ID nits have been checked. There was only one nit identified and this appears to be an error. This one id nit complained about addresses falling within "non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses" As far as I can tell, the only addresses are in section 4.2 and these are exactly within the range described in RFC5735. The tools team has been notified as this appears to be a bug or error in the nits checking program. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (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 (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 IANA considerations. (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. None (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. Not applicable.
- [bmwg] Document writeup for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-… Bill Cerveny