[Tmrg-interest] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09

[tli at cisco.com (Tony Li)]

Hi all,

This is a review of draft-irtf-tmrg-metrics-09, in accordance with  
draft-irtf-rfcs-01, section 5.2.2.  This review raises two issues  
(see [Issue x] below) that should be resolved prior to proceeding  
with publication.

This document is very well written.  I found the text to be clear,  
concise, direct and very comprehensible.  Where the text gets  
specific, there is ample reference to other detailed explanations.   
Any researcher entering this field for the first time would find this  
document very accessible and an excellent introduction to the area.

The document has had ample technical review in the research group.   
Previous editions of this document and their publication dates:

00		August 2005
01		October 2005
02		June 2006
03		June 2006
04		August 2006
05		November 2006
06		December 2006
07		February 2007
08		March 2007
09		March 2007

There is a change log included in the document that is two full pages  
and includes the names of the many contributors.  The acknowledgments  
section also highlights the breadth of contribution and review that  
the document has received, with 17 individuals listed.

Section 5.1 requirements:
     * There must be a statement in the abstract identifying it as  
the product of the RG

	Present

     * There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in  
the introduction) describing the level of support for publication.  
Example text might read: "this document represents the consensus of  
the FOOBAR RG" or "the views in this document were considered  
controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that  
the document should still be published".

	[Issue 1] Present in the abstract.  This text should be replicated  
into the body of the document.  Replacing the last paragraph of the  
introduction with a copy of the last paragraph from the abstract  
should suffice.

     * The breadth of review the document has received must also be  
noted. For example, was this document read by all the active  
contributors, only three people, or folks who are not "in" the RG but  
are expert in the area?

	It is clear from the number of contributors that the document was  
widely read.

     * It must also be very clear throughout the document that it is  
not an IETF product and is not a standard.

	This is as clear as can be expressed within the context of an  
Internet draft.  It should be noted that Internet drafts necessarily  
have a substantial amount of IETF boilerplate.

     * If an experimental protocol is described, appropriate usage  
caveats must be present.

	No protocol is described.

     * If the protocol has been considered in an IETF working group  
in the past, this must be noted in the introduction as well.

	No protocol is described.

     * There should be citations and references to relevant research  
publications.

	The references fill 4.5 pages and are frequently cited throughout  
the text.  Not being a subject matter expert, I am not prepared to  
judge their relevancy.  [Issue 2] It should be noted that as of the  
time of this review, several of the references are now outdated.   
These can easily be found through the idnits tool.  These should be  
updated before publication.


Tony Li
co-chair, Routing Research Group