Subject: [ippm] publication request for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-03.txt

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:59:30 +0100

Lars, IESG-secretary,

The IPPM WG requests publication of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-03.txt
on the standards track.  The sheperd write-up for the document is below.

Henk

- - - -

   (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 sheperd is Henk Uijterwaal.  He would not have bothered to write
this note if he didn't believe that the document was ready for publication.

   (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
         and from key non-WG members?

This is a small feature request.  About half a dozen people have read the
document and confirmed that this request will work without affecting current
implementations.   The request itself seems to be a useful enhancement.

   (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
         needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,

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?

No, there are no such 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?

Decent, with some 6 members of the group reviewing it.

   (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?

All except a complaint about the boilerplate.  This can be fixed by
the editor easily.

   (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?

Yes, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets.  This draft has an ETA
of Q1/2010.

   (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
         consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
         of the document?

Yes, it exists and appears to be complete and 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?

N/A.

   (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 the core specification of TWAMP -
    the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol.  This memo describes a new
    feature for TWAMP, that gives the controlling host the ability to
    start and stop one or more individual test sessions using Session
    Identifiers.  The base capability of the TWAMP protocol requires all
    test sessions previously requested and accepted to start and stop at
    the same time.

      Working Group Summary
The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for
several years.  The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing
special worth noticing.

      Document Quality
Good
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:44:05 -0500

>Yes, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets.  This draft has an ETA

I concluded (when looking at the latest update) that draft*reflect-octets
was an Informative reference. Although there are some interactions
identified, it's possible to implement draft*session-cntrl compliant
implementations without ever looking at draft*reflect-octets.

So, I moved draft*reflect-octets to the Informative list, but
will move it back if others feel that was a mistake. One citation
to consider is below (from section 3.1). Other citations describe
reflect-octets as "nice to have".

Al

    If the Control-Client has selected the Reflect Octets feature
    [I-D.ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets] in combination with the
    Individual Session Control feature (after the Server identified its
    capability), AND utilizes the feature to insert a locally-specified
    request number in the Request-TW-Session command, THEN the Control
    Client MAY send more than one Request-TW-Session command to a given
    Server without waiting for the corresponding Accept-Session message.
    In such a case the Access-Session response reflects the locally-
    specified request number.  Note that when the Reflect Octets feature
    is being used all Request-TW-Session command and Accept-Session
    responses MUST include the locally-specified request number.