Subject: [manet] Please publish draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-01

From: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:44:48 +0000

Please publish draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale-01 as an Informational RFC. The Shepherds Writeup is below.

Regards,
Stan

> (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?

This document is requested to be published as an Informational RFC.

OLSRv2 reflects ~8 years of experiences with OLSR, published as RFC3626
(Experimental), and multiple independent implementations and deployments
exist, and this protocol is in final review by the IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard. (The single DISCUSS outstanding is not related
to the subject matter of this document.)

This document presents the design rationale behind the way in which
OLSRv2 incorporated metrics. It does not mandate any protocol behaviors.

> (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
>
>  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.

The abstract of this document is included below.

   This document describes the rationale for and design considerations
   behind how link metrics are included in OLSRv2, in order to allow
   routing by other than minimum hop count routes.

> 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?
o OLSRv2 was first submitted as an individual draft in July 2005
(draft-clausen-manet-olsrv2-00), and accepted as a Working Group
document in August 2005.

o OLSRv2 is close to approval as a Propose Standard by the IESG
               (one DISCUSS to resolve).
o A key difference between RFC3626 and OLSRv2 is the introduction of
support for link metrics. An individual draft
(draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-00) was submitted in 2007, discussing
the design options, culminating in 2010 with
draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-05 documenting Working Group consensus
on this matter. Metrics support was, then, folded into OLSRv2.

o This document retains and documents the design rationale, and important
decisions for how metrics were integrated into OLSRv2.

> 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?

There is a number of independent implementations of OLSRv2, as was
indicated in the write-up for that OLSRv2.
This document does not propose a protocol, or mandate protocol behavior,
but rather presents part of the design rationale for OLSRv2.
> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>  Director?

Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director;  Stan Ratliff is the Document Shepherd.

> (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 shepherd has read and reviewed the document. no issues exist; the document is ready for publication.

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

No concerns exist.

> (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.

The authors do not believe that - outside the usual directorate reviews
during  IETF Last Call - additional reviews are required.

> (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 issues that the ADs and/or the IESG should be aware of.

> (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.

All authors have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR needing disclosure,
indeed that there are no known IPR claims related to this document.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

> (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?

> (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.)

> (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.

IDnits returns no errors or warnings

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

This document does not specify a protocol, a format, a media type or reserve
any code-points. Thus, such reviews are not needed.

> (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. There are no normative references in this document.

> (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. There are no normative references.

All informative references are, furthermore, to already published RFCs or
soon-to-be-RFCs (OLSRv2 currently in IESG review)

> (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.

Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

> (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).

This document has no actions for IANA.

> (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.

This document has no actions for IANA.

> (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.

No automated checks, other than IDnits, performed; the document does not
specify a protocol, but documents a design rationale.