[bmwg] Document Shepherd's Note on draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-03.txt
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Fri, 01 May 2009 01:35 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03883A69E2 for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XdCGlBkuAzqP for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4233A67E6 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1241141808!22205781!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141]
Received: (qmail 20574 invoked from network); 1 May 2009 01:36:49 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 May 2009 01:36:49 -0000
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n411amSa026067 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:36:48 -0700
Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n411ailo026047 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:36:44 -0700
Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n411ahP5002950 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:36:43 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n411ac1I002929 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:36:39 -0500
Message-Id: <200905010136.n411ac1I002929@klph001.kcdc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-238-82.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.238.82](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20090501013628gw1000u6a3e>; Fri, 1 May 2009 01:36:38 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:36:27 -0400
To: bmwg@ietf.org, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>
Subject: [bmwg] Document Shepherd's Note on draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-03.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 01 May 2009 01:35:29 -0000
Ron, BMWG, This is a publication request for MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-03.txt as an INFORMATIONAL RFC. (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, chair of BMWG, has personally reviewed the document and will be the document shepherd. The document is ready for publication. (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, this document has been refined in terms of its coverage and detail over the last 3 years, with good working group and external reviewer comments and addressed. Since becoming a chartered working group item last year, the draft has seen two WGLCs with many additional & constructive comments. The 2nd WGLC was cross-posted to the mpls WG list, and there was some feedback. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg02827.html The last WGLC went quietly, indicating that the BMWG is now satisfied with the document. (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, this methodology appears to satisfy its stated scope, and has benefited from the extensive review including those listed in the Acknowledgements section, and from a recently added co-author. (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 specific issues. Development of this draft has been smooth. No known IPR. (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 were some minor comments addressed as part of the third WGLC (mine), but otherwise the WG as a whole understands this draft and the need for it. WG commentary has been sufficiently active. (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 draft passes all nits checks, except for one false alarm: == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. which seems to be related to a section number reference on separate lines: port(s) Bp. The frame may contain either an IP packet or an MPLS packet depending on the testcase need, as described in the Section 4.1.4.3. Furthermore, the IP packet must be either an IPv4 or IPv6 ^^^^^^^ (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]. No downward references. (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 suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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? Yes. (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? Not Applicable. (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 Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the use of MPLS as a forwarding architecture in new and existing network designs. However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast the foundational MPLS packet forwarding capabilities of network devices. This document specifies a methodology using common criteria (such as throughput, latency, frame loss rate, system recovery, reset etc.) to evaluate MPLS forwarding of any implementation. The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The methods described are limited in scope to the most common MPLS packet forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements in a laboratory setting. This document focuses on the MPLS label stack having only one entry, as it is the fundamental of MPLS forwarding. Working Group Summary Development of this memo was smooth. The memo has been refined in terms of its coverage and detail over the last 3 years, with good working group and external reviewer comments addressed. Document Quality The authors are not aware of fully functional implementation of this method, although a number of test tool vendors are considering it, with variable levels of commitment. Many WG members have thoroughly reviewed this memo. Reviewers of previous versions include: Carlos Pignataro, Rodney Dunn, Scott Bradner, and Bill Cerveny.