Publication Request and Shepherding Form for IMIX draft
MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL <acmorton <at> att.com>
2013-04-29 17:36:51 GMT
Following Joel's WG consensus call, Lucien Avramov volunteered to
be the document shepherd for the IMIX draft, and he completed the
shepherd's form (attached). The IETF Last Call started last Monday,
and is still in progress.
Usually I send these forms to the WG, and that step
was delayed about a week, but here it is now.
In the future, Sarah and I will ask for other volunteers to
learn more about the IETF process through the role of shepherd,
and the shepherd role will be expanding a bit, too. For now,
I thank Lucien for his willingness to serve the BMWG in this
capacity (your work as shepherd is just beginning, Lucien!).
This is a Publication Request & document shepherding form for
IMIX Genome: Specification of variable packet sizes for additional testing
using the shepherding form dated 24 February 2012, now available from
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
Informational, as indicated on the title page.
All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
in part because they do not define protocols and
the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement
did not apply. However, they are specifications and
the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
level of requirements.
(2) 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:
Benchmarking Methodologies have always relied on test conditions with
constant packet sizes, with the goal of understanding what network
device capability has been tested. Tests with constant packet size
reveal device capabilities but differ significantly from the
conditions encountered in operational deployment, and so additional
tests are sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes, or
"IMIX". The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is
highly variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one
networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for another.
However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to
augment the fixed size tests. To address this need, and the
perpetual goal of specifying repeatable test conditions, this draft
defines a way to specify the exact repeating sequence of packet sizes
from the usual set of fixed sizes, and other forms of mixed size
Working Group Summary:
WG Consensus was smooth after development over a reasonable period of time.
There are many implementations of various test equipment that use IMIX.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Lucien Avramov
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Joel Jaeggli
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this
version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
to the IESG.
In depth review of the draft and the meeting minutes from the IETF conferences regarding this draft.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and
conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) 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?
Long standing reviews were constructive and agreeable, consensus is strong.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise
the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Based on idnits 2.12.16 <at> April 13, 2013
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).
where the warning and comment stem from the document date, 12/12/12.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the
title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
WG considers it unnecessary.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard
to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document
makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced
IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for
future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
N/A, no IANA considerations.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public
guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the
document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at> ietf.org