Subject: [bmwg] Document Shepherding Form: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt as an INFORMATIONAL RFC

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:24:48 -0400

BMWG,

As part of the formal request to Publish
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt as an INFORMATIONAL RFC,
the Document Shepherding Form is shared with the WG (below).

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

==============================================================================

This is a publication request for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt
as an INFORMATIONAL 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, chair of BMWG, has personally reviewed the document and will
be the document shepherd. The document is 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 document has received extensive review and generated considerable
discussion over the last year and a half. Key people from the v6ops WG
have reviewed the draft at various stages, including Pekka Savola,
Brian Carpenter, Athanassios Liakopoulos and Benoit Lourdelet.

The Doc Shepherd has no concerns about the extent of review.

    (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 known concerns.
No IPR disclosures related to draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth have been submitted
as of Oct 24, 2007.

    (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?
The Working Group consensus behind this document is very strong.
The document benefits from extensive comments provided by many WG members
during three WG Last Calls. Comment resolutions have been tracked and may
be reviewed here:
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-Meth-Last-Call-resolution2.pdf
Scott Bradner, Bill Cerveny, and Rajiv Asati completed the BMWG review template
(see http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt ).
David Newman and Dan Romascanu (as a participant) also provided comments
and participated in discussions. The third WG Last call was relatively silent
with only two minor comments that were easily resolved.

    (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?  If the document
           does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
           the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The single nits error in this document:
tmp/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt(708): Found possible IPv4 
address '198.18.0.0'
in position 4; this doesn't match RFC3330's suggested 192.0.2.0/24 
address range.

is a reference to the address range that IANA assigned to BMWG as part of
the IANA section (where a new IPv6 address range assignment is requested)

The document does not require MIB Doctor review, etc.

    (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, and all normative references are RFCs.

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
           Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
           document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
           Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
           the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?
The IANA section requests a dedicated IPv6 address range for BMWG lab testing,
using the existing range as an example. The size of the requested  range
reached consensus in the BMWG. No expert review should be necessary.

    (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?
NA

    (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.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
              For example, was there controversy about particular points
              or were there decisions where the consensus was
              particularly rough?

           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?

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
              experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
              in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical Summary

The Benchmarking Methodologies defined in RFC2544 [8] are IP version
independent.  However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the
specificities of IPv6.  This document provides additional
benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC2544, lead to a
more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of
network interconnect devices.  IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside
the scope of this document.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group consensus behind this document is very strong.
The document benefits from extensive comments provided by many WG members
during three WG Last Calls. Comment resolutions have been tracked and may
be reviewed here:
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-Meth-Last-Call-resolution2.pdf
Scott Bradner, Bill Cerveny, and Rajiv Asati completed the BMWG review template
(see http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt ).
David Newman and Dan Romascanu (as a participant) also provided comments
and participated in discussions. The third WG Last call was relatively silent
with only two minor comments that were easily resolved.

Document Quality

At least one test equipment vendor has already implemented this specification.

Personnel

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd.
Ron Bonica is the AD responsible for the BMWG

    The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
    Responsible Area Director and [email-masked] together with
    the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
    also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
    mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
    may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
    personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
    the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
    is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of the
    Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
    confidential handling.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg