[bmwg] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-term and -meth

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

BMWG,
FYI on this pub request,
Al
bmwg chair

>Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:02:35 -0400
>To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>From: Al Morton <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Publication Request for draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-term and -meth
>Cc: Dan Romascanu
>
>This is a publication request for
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-21
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-21
>as INFORMATIONAL RFCs.
>
>
>     (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 shepherd, has read virtually every version since these
>drafts were adopted on the charter, and believes they are now 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?
>These drafts have undergone extensive cross-area review, and a previous
>IESG review.
>
>     (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. 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.
>There are no concerns and no IPR disclosures.
>
>     (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?
>Over the last seven years, I'm quite sure that many WG members read and agreed
>with the documents at various times.  This is a measurement topic where the
>"state of the art" has steadily advanced, as evidenced by a useful 
>set of comments
>in response to the 2nd-to-last WGLC from a new member of the working group
>(December 2009).
>
>     (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.)
>Most discontent can be traced to the length of time this development took
>and the head-of-line blocking it caused. The draft development did not
>keep pace with some parts of the measurement community, and this caused a
>major setback in the first IESG review (among other issues). All of 
>the DISCUSS
>points were addressed a year ago (March 2009), but there was still some
>participant comments to address.  All seem to have been resolved now.
>
>     (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?
>Yes.
>
>
>     (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].
>The references are split.
>There is one normative reference to a draft that expired a year ago.
>The author would like to resuscitate it...
>No down-refs, all are drafts in this series are informational.
>
>     (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?
>N/A
>
>     (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?
>N/A
>
>     (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.
>    Convergence Time is a critical performance parameter.  Customers
>    of Service Providers use convergence packet loss due to
>    Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) convergence as a key metric of
>    their network service quality.  Service Providers use IGP
>    Convergence time as a key metric of router design and architecture
>    for any IGP such as Intermediate System - Intermediate System
>    (ISIS) and Open-Shorted Path first (OSPF).
>    Fast network convergence can be optimally achieved through deployment
>    of fast converging routers.  These documents
>    describe the terminology and methodology for benchmarking Link-State
>    IGP Convergence time, measured on the data plane by observing packet loss
>    through the Device under test.  The methodology and terminology can be
>    used for benchmarking IGP Convergence can be applied to both
>    IPv4 and IPv6 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?
>This set of drafts was reviewed by the IESG in 2007, and a design 
>team was formed
>to help address the DISCUSSes. In effect, the working group took the documents
>back for more work. The Design Team was disbanded in 2008, and remaining
>work was conducted in the working group (a total of 8 more revisions).
>The final last call ended quietly after many, many, calls with comments,
>so the chair declared "Working Group Consensus" (resulting in off-list
>celebrations).
>
>There was some controversy about authorship. The list was expanded to include
>a new/leading author in 2009. Early in 2010, a new participant 
>wished to become
>an author in return for his comments, but seemed satisfied with the 
>explanation
>provided by the WG chair.
>
>           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?
>IGP-Dataplane Convergence time testing has been conducted in various labs
>for many years. It was this experience that prompted standards work.
>New test equipment capabilities brought improvements in the state-of-the-art.
>Recently, test equipment vendors have embraced these methods more completely,
>and this yielded the last round of major comments in December 2009.