[IPFIX] Write-up for draft draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-08.txt
Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Wed, 26 December 2012 17:18 UTC
Return-Path: <Quittek@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A4721F8CE1; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:18:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kydr4dirNx8; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50CD21F8CCC; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59FA102B71; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:18:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkIeZ32tpE3U; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:18:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA836102B44; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:17:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.64]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:17:48 +0100
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Write-up for draft draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHN44znWDgCpD8GNkm+/0rCwvw0rQ==
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:17:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CCF8EE4C.67CCA%quittek@neclab.eu>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [10.7.0.92]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C8E152898198F541AC7C46D631717702@office.hd>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: [IPFIX] Write-up for draft draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-08.txt
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:18:11 -0000
Dear Benoit and dear IESG Secretary, Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-08.txt. The draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. Best regards, Juergen ======================================================================= Write-up for draft draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-08.txt ======================================================================= (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? Proposed Standard. The header indicates: "Category: Standards Track". It is appropriate. The RFC obsoletes standards track RFC 5202. It defines the standard for specifying and registering information Elements for the IPFIX protocol. (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: This document provides an overview of the information model for the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol, as defined in the IANA IPFIX Information Element Registry. It is used by the IPFIX Protocol for encoding measured traffic information and information related to the traffic Observation Point, the traffic Metering Process, and the Exporting Process. Although developed for the IPFIX Protocol, the model is defined in an open way that easily allows using it in other protocols, interfaces, and applications. This document obsoletes RFC 5102. Working Group Summary: The documents has been significantly changed in content compared to RFC 5202. The main reason for the change is the existence of an IANA registry for IPFIX information elements. This change was fully aggreed on in WG discussions. Document Quality: This is an update of RFC 5102 based on a lot of practica experiences with specifying registering and implementing IPFIX information elements. Changes compared to RFC 5102 result from these experiences. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 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. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the draft and is fully convinced that it is ready for publication. (4) 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 WG last call. Several comments were made and have been addressed when updating the document after the reviews.The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (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. No. (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 such issues. (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? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? The WG as a whole understands and agrees 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.) No. (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. There are no nits. The only issue is that references to work in progress need to be updated. These may create a MISSREF during RFC-Editor processing and will eventually be resolved as refernces to RFCs. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No further formal review required except for a thorough review by IANA which will be conducted anyway. (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? Yes, there are references to draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis and draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-07. Both documents are progressed by the IPFIX working group and will be published before or together with 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. (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. RFC 5102 will be obsoleted by this document. This is explicitly mentioned in the abstract and introduction. (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). The IANA considerations are of particular importance for this documents, because one of its main subjects is the registration of IPFIX information elements at IANA. Consequently, the IANA considerations sections has been checked thoroughly by WG and shepherd. (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. There are no new IANA registries requested by this document. It rather updates the descriptions of existing ones. (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. None to be done.
- [IPFIX] Write-up for draft draft-ietf-ipfix-infor… Juergen Quittek