[bmwg] WG Chair Shepherding Write-up for dsmterm
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 23 March 2006 05:08 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMI3G-0004lV-2w; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:08:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMI3F-0004lQ-0J for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:08:01 -0500
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMI3E-0007Lt-JO for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:08:00 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1143090479!10090657!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 23220 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2006 05:07:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO maillennium.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-14.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2006 05:07:59 -0000
Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.70.146.253](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20060323050758gw10010052e>; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:07:59 +0000
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20060323000503.0785f440@postoffice.maillennium.att.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:07:58 -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: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b
Subject: [bmwg] WG Chair Shepherding Write-up for dsmterm
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, FYI - Here's the shepherding write-up/publication request for the dsmterm draft. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ... 3.1 WG Chair Write-Up for Publication Request Internet-Draft: Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-12.txt WG Chair Shepherd: Al Morton 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. Note that a few typos have crept into version 12 (in section 3.4.4.5, "Expect" --> "Expected") and there are two very minor nits, considering that this document is being edited as a flat file, with little formatting help: * There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 2 longer pages, the longest (page 11) being 59 lines but these can be repaired along with future comments. 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes, the reviews have been very complete over 5 WG Last Calls. Non-WG members have been consulted, and there are no known concerns. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No, Co-Chair comments have been addressed. 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? This draft precipitated substantial comments from many WG members during its many WG Last Calls. The final comments were resolved as summarized here: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00845.html (then, the primary editor left the group, and it took time to get another editor to correct the I-D nits issues) ... 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Two lines have >72 characters (1 nit), and there is one warning. The nit should not impact AD or IESG review. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes, the references are split and all the normative references are stable. 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: The draft is Informational, as are all BMWG RFCs, but we provide the following summary: * Technical Summary This document describes terminology for the benchmarking of devices that implement traffic control based on IP precedence or Diffserv code point criteria. The terminology is to be applied to measurements made on the data plane to evaluate IP traffic control mechanisms. New terminology is needed because most existing measurements assume the absence of congestion and only a single per-hop- behavior. This document introduces several new terms that will allow measurements to be taken during periods of congestion. Another key difference from existing terminology is the definition of measurements as observed on egress as well as ingress of a device/system under test. Again, the existence of congestion requires the addition of egress measurements as well as those taken on ingress; without observing traffic leaving a device/system it is not possible to say whether traffic-control mechanisms effectively dealt with congestion. The principal measurements introduced in this document are vectors for rate, delay, and jitter, all of which can be observed with or without congestion of the DUT/SUT. * Working Group Summary This document is a product of the BMWG WG. The WG has consensus to publish this document as an Informational RFC. * Protocol Quality This document does not specify a protocol. 1.j) Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents. (above) _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg