[IPFIX] write-up for IPFIX Flow Selection Draft
Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz> Wed, 07 March 2012 10:28 UTC
Return-Path: <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
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 DD53821F8704 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:28:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 331BYbvIROiM for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.auckland.ac.nz (mx2.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5640B21F8703 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:28:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1331116114; x=1362652114; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=mx86mgC7k3OnW2hmuMznJSdf4YZO9ZwcJtQFfgCDqGE=; b=ujfc2/kkcM8KAZNIn6+2v9FkWbpfAqz7RMOcgcbqlryVaMLKi2eNTIF5 OI879N7Q3XvYVqk+34+wjpii1oZLeYGpmzTTzYIUlpo1K2vUaH1LIhTxp waOy+0UxdXSBtZGABSomPF6k4uwUsaOSDE8dhKpQKhImmBGiMBL+wE6MU Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,545,1325415600"; d="scan'208";a="108070382"
X-Ironport-HAT: None - $RELAY-AUTH
X-Ironport-Source: 158.38.40.197 - Outgoing - Outgoing-SSL
Received: from unigjest-dhcp197.uninett.no (HELO [158.38.40.197]) ([158.38.40.197]) by mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2012 23:28:30 +1300
Message-ID: <4F57384A.6090909@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:28:26 -0800
From: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/3.1.19
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPFIX list <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for IPFIX Flow Selection Draft
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, 07 Mar 2012 10:28:37 -0000
Hi Dan: Here's the write-up for this draft, would you please submit it to IESG for publication. I realise that it's not long until IETF-83, however I'm sending this to you now because it should complete the work items of the IPFIX charter's previous version. Cheers, Nevil Draft: draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt Title: Flow Selection Techniques As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 1, 2007. (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? Nevil Brownlee. I have reviewed this draft, I believe it's ready 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? Yes. This draft had a WGLC in August 2011, which raised important issues, mostly concerning its relationship to the PSAMP selection RFC. It was revised to address those issues, and had a second WGLC in February 2012. That raised a few further issues; these have been addressed in the current version. (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? 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? 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. This draft raised IPR concerns, in the same manner as the PSAMP selection draft had done. Nick Duffield (AT&T) commented that the AT&T IPR claim relates only to statistical sampling, and PSAMP handled this by saying "at least on of the sampling techniques must be implemented." In this draft, we have tightened that up a little by saying "a conforming implementation MUST implement at least the Property Match Filtering." (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? The WG has reached full consensus on this draft. (1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (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? The ID nits checker finds six nots concerned with references. In my opinion these are all Editorial, and - since the IETF-83 drafts deadline is very close now - can be fixed later on, say 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]. Yes. There no references to non-existing documents. The only issue here are the ID nits mentioned above. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration 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 Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes. No new IANA registries are required. (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 sections in a formal language. (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 Flow selection is the process of selecting a subset of flows from all observed flows. The Flow Selection Process may be located at an observation point, or on an IPFIX Mediator. Flow selection reduces the effort of post-processing flow data and transferring Flow Records. This document describes motivations for flow selection and presents flow selection techniques. It provides an information model for configuring flow selection techniques and discusses what information about a flow selection process should be exported. Working Group Summary This document has been extensively reviewed by the WG, and has had two WGLCs. I believe that all the issues raised have been resolved; we now have clear WG consensus. Document Quality I'm not aware of any implementations of IPFIX flow selection. Brian Trammell provided reviews that were particularly useful to the draft's authors. Personnel Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee AD: Dan Romascanu / Benoit Claise IANA Expert: Nevil Brownlee / Juergen Quittek -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
- [IPFIX] write-up for IPFIX Flow Selection Draft Nevil Brownlee