Subject: [bmwg] Document writeup for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02

From: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:31:19 -0400

Below is the document write-up for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02, "RFC 2544 Applicability Statement: Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful", which has been submitted for publication.

Regards,

Bill Cerveny
Document Shepherd for draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-02 

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

   Informational, as indicated on the title page.
   All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
   in part because they do not define protocols and
   the traditional conditions for standards track advancement
   did not apply.  However, they are specifications and
   the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
   level of requirements.

(2) 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

   Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has been developing key
   performance metrics and laboratory test methods since 1990, and
   continues this work at present.  Recent application of the methods
   beyond their intended scope is cause for concern.  This memo
   clarifies the scope of RFC 2544 and other benchmarking work for the
   IETF community.

Working Group Summary

   Working group consensus was achieved in a single WGLC, after allowing
   a year for review and many useful comments and exchanges. 

Document Quality

   The single-sentence message of this memo was clear from first publication.
   Most comments helped to make the wording more concise.

Personnel

  Document Shepherd: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>

  Area Director: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

   The document shepherd has reviewed this document three times.  There are no
   outstanding issues, as far as the document shepherd is concerned.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

   No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

   No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

   There are no specific concerns or issues that the document shepherd
   has with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

   Each author has confirmed that there are no known IPR concerns, nor
   are any IPR disclosures required.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

   No

(9) 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?   

   Many WG members have reviewed this draft, including long-time participants,
   new participants, and (most importantly) participants who work at companies
   most affected by the statements in this memo. WG consensus was called
   by Area Director Ron Bonica, since the current chair and *all past chairs*
   are co-authors.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

   No appeals have been threatened.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   ID nits have been checked.  There was only one nit identified and this 
   appears to be an error. This one id nit complained about addresses 
   falling within "non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses" As far as I can 
   tell, the only addresses are in section 4.2 and these are exactly within 
   the range described in RFC5735.

   The tools team has been notified as this appears to be a bug or error in 
   the nits checking program.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   Not applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   Yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

   No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure. 

   No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

   No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

   There are no IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

   None

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

   Not applicable.