Dear IETF secretariat,
The IPPM group would like to ask for publication of draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp
as an RFC. The shepherd note for the document is attached.
Henk
- - - -
Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00, as required by
rfc4858, and specfied in the 17-Sep-2008 version of
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/Doc-Writeup.html.
(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?
The document shepherd is Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net. I have personally
reviewed this document and would not have bothered to write this note if I
didn't feel it was ready for the IESG.
(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?
I believe the document has received sufficent review from WG members.
This is a small extension to a thoroughly reviewed protocol. I have no
concerns about the depth or breadth of reivews for this document.
(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?
None.
Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed?
No.
(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?
This is an extension to an existing protocol (TWAMP, RFC 5357). The issue
came up when the TWAMP protocol was close to completion. As the WG wanted
to finish TWAMP, it was decided to put possible extensions in another
document. TWAMP is actively being used by several groups these days,
none of them raised any issues with the document. The document authors are
both involved with 2 of the implementations of the protocol and would
have flagged any issues.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
No.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits?
There are the following issues:
** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this
to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document
(see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required from
December 16, 2008. Version 1.34 of xml2rfc can be used to produce
documents with boilerplate according to the mentioned Trust License
Policy document.
It is not clear to me if this is correct, as the document was submitted
before Nov 10 (i.e. pre-5378).
== Missing Reference: '0-31' is mentioned on line 257, but not defined
This looks like an error in the tool.
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2434' is defined on line 292, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226)
This reference can go.
Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
None of these are necessary.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
Yes, the informative reference section can be removed on publication as
there are none.
Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state?
No.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?
There is an IANA considerations section, it is consistent.
(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?
Not applicable.
(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
The IETF has completed its work on TWAMP - the Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol
