Subject: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> (IPPM standard advancement testing) to BCP

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'IPPM standard advancement testing'
  <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

This document includes a normative reference to RFC 2330, which is an
Informational RFC, however, RFC 2330 has been used as a normative
reference in several other IPPM working group documents, though some
predate the requirement to split normative and informative references.  One
example of an existing normative reference to RFC 2330 is found in RFC
6049.  The IESG is particularly interested in determining whether the
community considers RFC 2330 sufficiently mature to serve as a normative
reference for standards track and BCP publications.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:32:59 -0500

I should explain to the working group what the 2nd IETF LC for this
document is about.

During the IESG evaluation on the document, it was determined that
this really needed to be a BCP since it's about process.

Also, it was pointed out that the normative reference to RFC 2330
needs to be pointed out in the IETF LC since 2330 is Informational.
Once this has been done, it can be added to the down-ref registry,
if the IETF doesn't express any issue with that (and it shouldn't
since 2330 has been cited this way before).

Thanks for bearing with the 2nd IETF LC on this!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ippm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-05.txt> (IPPM
standard	advancement testing) to BCP
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:47:44 -0800
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm