RE: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the work.

The changes together with the email discussion have clarified the situation with
regard to my question.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Yourtchenko [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 13 February 2014 20:05
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific
> Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
> 
> Hello Adrian,
> 
> I've uploaded today the
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-10 that hopefully
> took into account the review by changing the text of the Abstract and
> Introduction.
> 
> Please take a look for the new revision, and let us know what you think.
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> --a
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 
> >
> > Thanks Benoit, that is an important point and is really helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, do I read you right if I say that this document records some NetFlow v9
> features and codepoints that were
> > accidentally missed when RFC 3954 was written.
> >
> >
> >
> > Or are these later modifications to NetFlow v9 (let's call it v9.x) that use
the
> same code point range but were not
> > actually part of v9?
> >
> >
> >
> > The question might arise as to whether this document is supposed to update
> 3954.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 28 January 2014 09:47
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Andrew Yourtchenko
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific
> Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to
> > Informational RFC
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me reply to myself: I forgot an important point, which might be useful
if
> people start discussing AD sponsoring of
> > this document, without actually having read it.
> >
> > Let me stress the first sentence of the Introduction section.
> >
> >    The section 4 of [RFC7012] defines the IPFIX Information Elements in
> >
> >    the range of 1-127 to be compatible with the NetFlow version 9
> >
> >    fields, as specified in the "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
> >
> >    Version 9" [RFC3954].
> >
> > So this draft is clearly linked to the work in IPFIX RFC 7012 (IPFIX
information
> model) and must follow the RFC 7013
> > rules (Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of IPFIX Information Elements),
> therefore would benefit from more reviews.
> >
> > It's probably not too clear from the abstract, and should be improved.
> >
> > OLD:
> >
> >    This document describes some additional Information Elements of Cisco
> >
> >    Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954
> >
> >
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> >    This document describes some additional IPFIX Information Elements in
> >
> >    the range of 1-127, which is the range compatible with field types used
> >
> >    by NetFlow version 9 in RFC3954, as specified in the IPFIX Information
Model
> >
> >    RFC 7012.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards, Benoit (an as author)
> >
> >
> >
> >       Adrian,
> >
> >       Not an answer to the process question, but some background information
> on this draft.
> >       This draft, which is now 3 years old, has been evolving with the IPFIX
> standardization.
> >       For example, looking at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yourtchenko-
> cisco-ies-09.txt, you can see
> >       the interaction with the IPFIX WG document ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-
> monitoring: now that
> >       ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring is in the RFC editor queue, the
draft has
> been simplified, and some
> >       IPFIX Information Elements in the range 1-127 became deprecated.
> >       This explains why the draft has been presented and reviewed multiple
times
> in the IPFIX WG, and also why it
> >       would benefit from a wider review than the independent stream.
> >
> >       Regards, Benoit (as draft author)
> >
> >
> >
> >       Hi,
> >
> >       I have a process question on this last call which is not clear from
the last
> >       call text.
> >
> >       Are we being asked to consider whether publication of this document is
> useful,
> >       or are we being asked for IETF consensus on the *content* of the
> document?
> >
> >       It seems from the document that the content is descriptive of
something
> >       implemented by a single vendor. I applaud putting that information
into the
> >       public domain, but I don't understand the meaning of IETF consensus
with
> respect
> >       to this document.
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >       Adrian
> >
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of The
> >       IESG
> >       Sent: 21 January 2014 12:33
> >       To: IETF-Announce
> >       Subject: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco
Specific
> >       Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
> >
> >
> >       The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
> >       the following document:
> >       - 'Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX'
> >          <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> as Informational RFC
> >
> >       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
> >       [e-mail] mailing lists by 2014-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> >       sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> >       beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> >       Abstract
> >
> >
> >           This document describes some additional Information Elements of
Cisco
> >           Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       The file can be obtained via
> >       http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/
> >
> >       IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >       http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ballot/
> >
> >
> >       No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >
> >
> >       .
> >
> >
> >       .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >