Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Al,
> FYI,
> Al
>
>> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:33:51 -0500
>> To: [e-mail], Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>
>> From: Al Morton <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06
>> Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>>
>> This is a publication request for
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06
>> as a Best Current Practice RFC.
>>
>>
>>     (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 every version since the
>> draft was created and subsequently adopted on the charter,
>> and believes it is 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?
>> The draft has been reviewed by many active working group members and
>> benefits from their comments. It has also been circulated to other
>> performance-oriented working groups.
>>
>>     (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?
>> There was active discussion of this draft in the WG and many points 
>> addressed,
>> all amicably.
>> After several WG Last Calls, the latest closing with comments that were
>> efficiently resolved, both the active and the recently passive 
>> participants
>> now appear to be satisfied.
>>
>>     (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?
>> Yes.
>>
>> There is one warning:
>>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary has been 
>> published
>>      as RFC 6035
Yes, just published.
>>
>>
>>
>>     (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 informative reference to a draft that was since updated
>> (see above).
>> Also, this ref is likely to be published soon:
>>    [I-D.ietf-ippm-spatial-composition]
>>               Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
>>               Metrics", draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-16 (work in
>>               progress), August 2010.
>>
>> No down-refs.
>>
>> I would also suggest to add a reference to
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest
>> which will be the published draft that uses material from
>> existing ref [I-D.bradner-metricstest].
Is there something I should act upon now, by producing a new version?
Btw, what is the state of this draft?

Regards, Benoit.
>>
>>     (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.
>> This document describes a framework and a process for developing
>> performance metrics of protocols and applications transported over
>> over IETF-specified protocols, and that can be used to characterize
>> traffic on live networks and services.
>>
>> There's a steady (but small) stream of performance-oriented proposals
>> that appear in many areas of the IETF. The authors of such proposals
>> can usually benefit from the expertise of those who have tackled
>> similar tasks, and much of that expertise is embedded in this memo.
>> When others review such proposals, the framework forms an outline of
>> points to consider, and the memo defines a possible process for review.
>>
>>
>>           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?
>> There were no areas of rough consensus, as the elements of reasonable
>> performance metrics appear to be agreed in the practicing community.
>>
>>           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?
>> This framework has already been used in the review of several approved
>> drafts, such as:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics
>> and
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5814
>
> _______________________________________________
> PMOL mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol