[PMOL] Fwd: Publication Request for draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-06
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 20:35 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 4801E28C13F for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Jh1vJKCSi7bV for <pmol@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CDC28C135 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1291235780!20703610!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
Received: (qmail 25375 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2010 20:36:21 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-4.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Dec 2010 20:36:21 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB1Kadug014679 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:36:40 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB1KaZmm014528 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:36:35 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB1KaFfa003102 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:36:15 -0500
Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB1Ka4JZ002596 for <pmol@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:36:05 -0500
Message-Id: <201012012036.oB1Ka4JZ002596@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-183-142.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.183.142](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101201203604gw1004lkb5e>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:36:04 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.183.142]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:36:32 -0500
To: pmol@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:35:28 -0000
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 > > > > (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]. > > (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] 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