Re: [IPFIX] Link-layer IEs draft submitted to IESG
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 0DC3B21F9B07 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 1zKsJ9UBbWGb for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7194B21F9B66 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3224; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381351256; x=1382560856; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NZZ4Nz+tKOv3P0WoL4uTvw2Df1YFvQgk5ZvQ9oRJTCY=; b=RbYYD+5jS5cfTsgA/MXjaH1bSgiITBVnEbL9XgdJgaK11y+uM3GAny5u 2prQMFZL5hXua/D+KAXxpSkfYqL1T/klOAWBYLZb2zI9cBC0vLXcqGzJz 50NW5KKXXkTeid6X3FjF+elpLFZ1lnoWZP4y/qCDYBk5UPwxzZzV//Y8X k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAIK+VVKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABaDoJ5wkGBHxZ0giYBAQQ4QAEQCw4TFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBiAK5AY1xgSEzB4QjA5gDhjeLSoJlQTo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1066,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="160504330"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2013 20:40:54 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r99KeohN014577; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:40:51 GMT
Message-ID: <5255BF52.5090101@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:40:50 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
References: <5255A655.50605@auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <5255A655.50605@auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IPFIX list <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Link-layer IEs draft submitted to IESG
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, 09 Oct 2013 20:41:12 -0000
Dear all, I reviewed the document, and this document is in good shape. Therefore, its state is now "Last Call Requested" Regards, Benoit > > Hi all: > > Here's the write-up for our link-layer IEs draft, which I've just > submitted. > > Cheers, Nevil > > Write-up for: > draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06 > Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic Measurement > > === 1. Summary === > > Document shepherd: Nevil Brownlee > Responsible Area Director: Benoit Claise > > This document describes Information Elements (IEs) related to data > link layer. They are used by the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) > protocol for encoding measured data link layer traffic information. > > The document is intended to be a Proposed Standard. It describes, > in detail, a set of Information Elements describing link-layer > objects. These will be particularly to service providers who use > Wide-Area Ethernet or Virtual Ethernet technologies. > > === 2. Review and Consensus === > > This draft's -00 version was published in July 2012. Two of its > authors were from a large Japanese provider who needed to monitor and > report on link-layer performance. Since then it has received ongoing > low-activity-level discussion on the IPFIX list. It has also been > discussed at each IETF meeting since then; alas, the WG has always > considered this as low-priority work. > > Its WGLC was run in October 2012; we realised at that point that we > needed someone from IEEE 802.1 to check that our Ethernet IEs were > correct in their descriptions of the IEEE-defined technologies. > Pat Thaler, IEEE liaison for IETF, has helped develop this document > since then, she confirms that the IEEE-related IEs are correct in > their descriptions. > > It has been carefully reviewed by Paul Aitken and Brian Trammell, > both pointed out issues; these have been addressed in successive > versions. > > Overall I believe that there is clear consensus within the WG for > this draft. > > === 3. Intellectual Property === > > No IPR disclosures have been made directly on this draft, IPR > on it has not been discussed in the WG. > > Two of the authors have stated that their direct, personal > knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been > disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. > The third author, Shingo Kashima, has not responded to my email > requests for this confirmation. > > === 4. Other Points === > > This document has no downward references. > > Its IANA Considerations clearly state what IANA is being asked > to do, i.e. add 25 new IPFIX Information Elements to the > IPFIX Information Element Registry. These have been discussed > at IETF meetings with all four of the IE-Doctors present. > > It also describes two existing IEs: 312, dataLinkFrameSize and > 315, dataLinkFrameSection. These are already in the Information > Element Registry - they're listed here so that all the link-layer > IEs are described in a single RFC. > > The ID-nits checker has a few other complaints; the RFC Editor will > fix those. > > Overall, I believe that this draft is ready for publication as > an RFC. >
- [IPFIX] Link-layer IEs draft submitted to IESG Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [IPFIX] Link-layer IEs draft submitted to IESG Benoit Claise