Subject: [Rmt] request to publish draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03 as Proposed Standard

From: Lorenzo Vicisano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:50:47 -0800

Dear Magnus,

please find attached the "Document Announcement Write-Up" and
questionnaire for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03.

	thank you,
	Lorenzo Vicisano

##################################################################

Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03
intended for publication in the "Proposed Standard" category.

This writeup complies with RFC 4858

    (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?

Document Shepherd is Lorenzo Vicisano, who has personally
reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready
for forwarding 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?

The document had adequate review both key WG members.

The document has been reviewed by multiple WG members and has been
updated to reflect their comments.  There are no unresolved issues.
The Experimental RFC3941 upon which this revision is based was
thoroughly reviewed.  The differences between this revision and the
original document are not substantial.

    (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 additional reviews needed.

    (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.

No concerns.

    (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 document represent a solid consensus of the RMT WG.

    (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 discontent of significant concern have been raised about this
document.

    (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 Document Shepherd has personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits.

draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03 is intended for publication in the
"Proposed Standard" category.

    (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 document splits its references into normative and
informative. The normative reference are in RFC published status.
None of the normative reference is a downward reference.

    (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 consideration section exists. It states that this document
does not have any IANA dependency.

    (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?

The documents contains no section written in formal language.

    (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>.'

Document Announcement Write-Up for draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03 follows.

Technical Summary

    This document is an RMT Building Block that specifies data and procedures
    useful for building a reliable multicast transport protocol based
    on negative-acknowledgment (NACK) feedback.

    draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03 specifically defines the following
    main components for use in protocol instantiations:

      1)   Multicast sender transmission strategies
      2)   NACK repair process with timer-based feedback suppression
      3)   Round-trip timing for adapting NACK and other timers

    draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised-03 also includes context information
    defining the intended usage and applicability of the NACK building
    Block, in compliance with RFC 3269.

    Another RMT WG document, draft-ietf-rmt-pi-norm-revised, uses the
    specifications in this document to fully-define a NACK based
    reliable multicast transport protocol.

Working Group Summary

     There is consensus in the WG to publish this documents.

Document Quality

     The NORM Protocol Specification (RFC3940 and revised draft) is
     based upon the techniques described in this "building block" document.
     A public domain, open source implementation of the NORM protocol is
     available for use from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.  This
     implementation has been widely used in a number of applications,
     including military and commercial systems.  The INRIA has an
     implementation in progress.

     The content of this document was already reviewed and approved for
     publication as experimental RFC 3941. This document contains minor
     technical modifications.

Personnel

     Lorenzo Vicisano is the Document Shepherd.
     Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director.
_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt