[IPFIX] Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09
Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Fri, 20 May 2011 07:31 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 15540E06F8; Fri, 20 May 2011 00:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 F99cTAq0ZkhS; Fri, 20 May 2011 00:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC76E06F4; Fri, 20 May 2011 00:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB192800034C; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:31:44 +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 GkswWLO--QQN; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:31:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB0028000191; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:31:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.225]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:31:24 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09
Thread-Index: AcwWv+mQeBjdrxMaGEeXH+i3dbe5hw==
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:31:22 +0000
Message-ID: <C9FBE568.1488B%quittek@neclab.eu>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.9.0.110114
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.219]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <09FDD648DFDB9E44A0DD56D5B0E98AF4@office.hd>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: [IPFIX] Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09
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: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:31:47 -0000
Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary, Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09. The draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. Best regards, Juergen ========================================================================== Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09 ==================================================== (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 WG last call. Since it contains a YANG module, a YANG doctor review was organized for this draft by the NETMOD WG. 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. (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 are none. (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]. References are arranged correctly. (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 defines actions for IANA in an appropriate way. (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? The document contains a YANG module in section 6 and several XML configuration modules in section 7. All have been validated. (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 specifies a data model for configuring and monitoring Selection Processes, Caches, Exporting Processes, and Collecting Processes of IPFIX and PSAMP compliant Monitoring Devices using the NETCONF protocol [RFC4741]. The data model is defined using UML (Unified Modeling Language) class diagrams and formally specified using YANG [RFC6020]. The configuration data is encoded in Extensible Markup Language (XML). 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 a WG last call in the IPFIX WG and a YANG doctor review organized by the NETMOG 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-configuratiā¦ Juergen Quittek