Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 07 December 2010 04:58 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pmol@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A8128C0FC for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 20:58:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9btU1YW1RbBu for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 20:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CDD28C0CF for <pmol@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 20:58:34 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB74xuvY000174; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:59:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.61.82.185] (ams3-vpn-dhcp4794.cisco.com [10.61.82.185]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB74wWKf010671; Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:58:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4CFDBEF5.1080403@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:58:29 -0800
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
References: <201012012036.oB1Ka4JZ002596@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <201012012036.oB1Ka4JZ002596@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pmol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06
X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers <pmol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pmol>
List-Post: <mailto:pmol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol>, <mailto:pmol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 04:58:36 -0000
Thanks Al, > FYI, > Al > >> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:33:51 -0500 >> To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com> >> From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> >> Subject: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06 >> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> >> >> 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 > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol
- [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pm… Al Morton
- Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-iet… Benoit Claise
- Re: [PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-iet… Benoit Claise