[ippm] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 01 December 2011 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C4611E8238 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 h3nSYSIlu-FH for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (omr4.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D022211E8130 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-omr2 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr4.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB1GWv4J001166 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:33:00 -0500
Authentication-Results: cm-omr2 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [173.108.38.153] ([173.108.38.153:47543] helo=[68.245.171.115]) by cm-omr2 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id BE/C7-29388-83CA7DE4; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:32:57 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED7AC3B.9080309@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:32:59 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ippm@ietf.org
References: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20111201144744.30975.72020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:33:05 -0000

I should explain to the working group what the 2nd IETF LC for this
document is about.

During the IESG evaluation on the document, it was determined that
this really needed to be a BCP since it's about process.

Also, it was pointed out that the normative reference to RFC 2330
needs to be pointed out in the IETF LC since 2330 is Informational.
Once this has been done, it can be added to the down-ref registry,
if the IETF doesn't express any issue with that (and it shouldn't
since 2330 has been cited this way before).

Thanks for bearing with the 2nd IETF LC on this!


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> (IPPM
standard	advancement testing) to BCP
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: ippm@ietf.org


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'IPPM standard advancement testing'
  <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

This document includes a normative reference to RFC 2330, which is an
Informational RFC, however, RFC 2330 has been used as a normative
reference in several other IPPM working group documents, though some
predate the requirement to split normative and informative references.  One
example of an existing normative reference to RFC 2330 is found in RFC
6049.  The IESG is particularly interested in determining whether the
community considers RFC 2330 sufficiently mature to serve as a normative
reference for standards track and BCP publications.



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm