Subject: [ippm] Request publication of draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt as Informational

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:12:45 -0400

The IP Performance Metrics WG requests publication of
draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt, "Defining Network Capacity",
as Informational.

Below is the questionnaire and protocol writeup requested as part of the
document shepherding process. [Interested group members can reference
RFC 4858 for details on the document shepherding process.]

--Matt Zekauskas, IPPM Co-Chair

-=-=-=-

Shepherd Note for draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt
    "Defining Network Capacity"

    (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?

Matt Zekauskas <[email-masked]> is the document shepherd.
I have personally reviewed this version of the document, and feel
this version is ready to forward to the IESG 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?

Yes.  We have even have comments from another AD.

    (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.

I have no specific concerns or issues with this document that the
responsible AD or IESG should be aware of.
No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed.

    (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?

I believe the WG members as a whole understand and agree with it.

    (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.

I have verified the document satisfies all ID nits.  It needs no
additional formal review.  The document is intended to be Informational.

    (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].

This document has split its references.  There are no "downward 
references", nor references to documents that are not stable.

    (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?

This document requests nothing of IANA, and says so.

    (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?

There are no formal language fragments in this document.

    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  [detail elided--mjz]

Technical Summary

    Measuring network capacity is a task that sounds simple, but in
    reality can be quite complex.  In addition, the lack of a unified
    nomenclature on this subject makes it increasingly difficult to
    properly build, test, and use techniques and tools built around
    these constructs.  This document provides definitions for the terms
    'Capacity' and 'Available Capacity' related to IP traffic traveling
    between a source and destination in an IP network, to provide a
    common framework for the discussion and analysis of a diverse set
    of current and future measurement and estimation techniques.

Working Group Summary

    The working group has supported the document through the last
    five revisions, and it has been uncontroversial.

Document Quality
    The document has been given thorough review by the group over its
    revisions, and in particular Joseph Kopena and Dan Romanescu have
    given thorough reviews improving document quality.

Personnel
    Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas
    Responsible Area Director: Lars Eggert

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