[IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-08
Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Mon, 04 October 2010 11:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Quittek@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87153A6F88; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 04:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+sG6efeJGks; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 04:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863E83A6F86; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9A528000188; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:49:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0CEnUDnH5sH; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:49:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (Enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4977A28000183; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:49:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.252]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:49:01 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-08
Thread-Index: Actjuh9GkTNyTuUuMUCR5YrD4kcMaw==
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:49:00 +0000
Message-ID: <C8CF8BC7.1499E%quittek@neclab.eu>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.6.0.100712
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.39]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3369044936_408263"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-08
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:48:28 -0000
Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary, Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-08. The draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. Best regards, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@nw.neclab.eu Tel: +49 6221 4342-115 NEC Europe Limited, Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 4342-155 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK Registered in England 2832014 ========================================================================== Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-07 ============================================================ (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? Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members during two WG last calls. Several comments were made and have been addressed when updating the document after the WGLCs. The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review. (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? 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There is no such concern. (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? There is a strong consensus in the IPFIX WG to publish this version of the document. There are no particular issues in the document without strong consensus in the IPFIX WG. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There was no appeal. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document shepherd checked for ID nits. There is a capitalized "SHOUND" in section 9, 2nd paragraph, line 9, that needs to be changed to lower case "should". Some references need to be updated, because referenced documents have been updated or obsoleted. All of these changes can easily be made in the next update that is expected after IETF last call. (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? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Four reference have been outdated since the document was submitted. This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references may need an update by then. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document states correctly that there it has no actions for IANA. (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? There are no such sections. (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 This document describes a framework for IPFIX Mediation. This framework extends the IPFIX reference model by defining the IPFIX Mediator components. Working Group Summary The mediation framework was added to the IPIFX charter in 2008. The document was discussed at all meetings since then and had several revisions. There was nothing special about this document. Document Quality The document underwent two WG last call in the IPFIX WG. This way, a high document quality has been achieved already. Personnel Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible Area director.
- [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-f… Juergen Quittek