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 <henk@xxxxxxxx>. 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. This memo describes a simple extension to TWAMP, the option to use different security modes in the TWAMP- Control and TWAMP-Test protocols. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document was discussed at various IETF meetings in 2008. There was no controversy in the WG process. Consensus was smooth. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Yes, at least 3 vendors are implementing TWAMP. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf