[ippm] Draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp

[Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>]

Dear IETF secretariat,

The IPPM group would like to ask for publication of draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp
as an RFC.  The shepherd note for the document is attached.

Henk

- - - -

Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00, as required by
rfc4858, and specfied in the 17-Sep-2008 version of
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html>.

     (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?

The document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]>.  I have personally
reviewed this document and would not have bothered to write this note if I
didn't feel it was ready for the IESG.

     (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?

I believe the document has received sufficent review from WG members.
This is a small extension to a thoroughly reviewed protocol.  I have no
concerns about the depth or breadth of reivews for this 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.

     (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?

None.

           Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed?

No.

     (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 is an extension to an existing protocol (TWAMP, RFC 5357).  The issue
came up when the TWAMP protocol was close to completion.  As the WG wanted
to finish TWAMP, it was decided to put possible extensions in another
document.  TWAMP is actively being used by several groups these days,
none of them raised any issues with the document.  The document authors are
both involved with 2 of the implementations of the protocol and would
have flagged any issues.

     (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
           discontent?

No.

     (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
           document satisfies all ID nits?

There are the following issues:

   ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate.  You should update this
      to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document
      (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required from
      December 16, 2008.  Version 1.34 of xml2rfc can be used to produce
      documents with boilerplate according to the mentioned Trust License
      Policy document.

It is not clear to me if this is correct, as the document was submitted
before Nov 10 (i.e. pre-5378).

   == Missing Reference: '0-31' is mentioned on line 257, but not defined

This looks like an error in the tool.

   == Unused Reference: 'RFC2434' is defined on line 292, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226)

This reference can go.


           Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such
           as  the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

None of these are necessary.

     (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
           informative?

Yes, the informative reference section can be removed on publication as
there are none.

           Are there normative references to documents that
           are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
           state?

No.

     (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
           consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
           of the document?

There is an IANA considerations section, it is consistent.

     (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

    The IETF has completed its work on TWAMP - the Two-Way Active
    Measurement Protocol.  This memo describes a simple extension to
    TWAMP, the option to use different security modes in the TWAMP-
    Control and TWAMP-Test protocols.



           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 document was discussed at various IETF meetings in 2008.  There
was no controversy in the WG process.  Consensus was smooth.

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes, at least 3 vendors are implementing TWAMP.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.