[ippm] Request publication of draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt as Informational
Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> Fri, 21 September 2007 07:12 UTC
Return-path: <ippm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYcgz-00014y-KZ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:49 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYcgy-0000x5-4M; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:48 -0400
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([207.75.164.22]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYcgx-0002LC-3q; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:47 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9491047C7B; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18624-07; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B945647CF5; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <46F36EED.7060308@internet2.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:45 -0400
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>, IETF-IESG-Support via RT <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 789c141a303c09204b537a4078e2a63f
Cc: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: [ippm] Request publication of draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt as Informational
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org >
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
The IP Performance Metrics WG requests publication of draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt, "Defining Network Capacity", as Informational. Below is the questionnaire and protocol writeup requested as part of the document shepherding process. [Interested group members can reference RFC 4858 for details on the document shepherding process.] --Matt Zekauskas, IPPM Co-Chair -=-=-=- Shepherd Note for draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt "Defining Network Capacity" (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? Matt Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed this version of the document, and feel this version is ready to forward to the IESG 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. We have even have comments from another AD. (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. I have no specific concerns or issues with this document that the responsible AD or IESG should be aware of. No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed. (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? I believe the WG members as a whole understand and agree with it. (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? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. I have verified the document satisfies all ID nits. It needs no additional formal review. The document is intended to be Informational. (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]. This document has split its references. There are no "downward references", nor references to documents that are not stable. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations 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 [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? This document requests nothing of IANA, and says so. (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? There are no formal language fragments in this document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. [detail elided--mjz] Technical Summary Measuring network capacity is a task that sounds simple, but in reality can be quite complex. In addition, the lack of a unified nomenclature on this subject makes it increasingly difficult to properly build, test, and use techniques and tools built around these constructs. This document provides definitions for the terms 'Capacity' and 'Available Capacity' related to IP traffic traveling between a source and destination in an IP network, to provide a common framework for the discussion and analysis of a diverse set of current and future measurement and estimation techniques. Working Group Summary The working group has supported the document through the last five revisions, and it has been uncontroversial. Document Quality The document has been given thorough review by the group over its revisions, and in particular Joseph Kopena and Dan Romanescu have given thorough reviews improving document quality. Personnel Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas Responsible Area Director: Lars Eggert _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] Request publication of draft-ietf-ippm-bw-… Matthew J Zekauskas