Re: [IPFIX] proposal for IPFIX charter update -> Internet Standard

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I suggest to say 'advance RFC 5101 and RFC 5102 to the next stage of
standardization on the standards track'. 

The question that will be asked at some point is whether IPFIX reached
the 'wide deployment' required by a Full Standard, but this is something
we need to care about when and if we reach that phase and the process
was already transitioned to two levels. 

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:10 PM
> To: Juergen Quittek; Nevil Brownlee; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] proposal for IPFIX charter update -> Internet
> Standard
> 
> Juergen, Nevil, Dan,
> 
> In light of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08, which
> is in the RFC-editor queue, should we shoot for RFC5101bis and
> RFC5102bis as Internet Standard.
> Maybe a sentence in the charter such as. If
> draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08 is published in time for the WG
> milestones, the revised RFC5101 and RFC5102 should target Internet
> Standard status"
> 
> Regards, Benoit.
> > Dear all,
> >
> > At our session in Quebec we discussed candidates
> > for new IPFIX work items. Based on this discussion,
> > Nevil and I drafted an update of our charter that
> > you can find below.
> >
> > Please have a look at it and send us your comments.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >      Juergen
> >
> >
> > IP Flow Information Export (ipfix)
> >
> >
> > Description of Working Group
> >
> >
> > The IPFIX working group has specified the information model (to
> describe
> > IP flows) and the IPFIX protocol (to transfer IP flow data from
IPFIX
> > exporters to collectors). Several implementers have already built
> > applications using the IPFIX protocol. As a result of a series of
> IPFIX
> > interoperability testing events the WG has produced guidelines for
> IPFIX
> > implementation and testing as well as recommendations for handling
> > special cases such as bidirectional flow reporting and reducing
> > redundancy in flow records.
> >
> > The IPFIX WG has developed a mediation framework, that defines IPFIX
> > mediators for processing flow records for various purposes including
> > aggregation, anonymization, etc. For configuring IPFIX devices, a
> YANG
> > module has been developed.
> >
> > 1. Having a solid standardized base for IPFIX deployment and
> operation
> > and several exiting implementations, the IPFIX WG will revisit the
> IPFIX
> > protocol specifications (RFC 5101) and the IPFIX information element
> > specification (RFC 5102) in order to advance them to draft standard.
> >
> > 2. For giving guidelines to developers of new IPFIX information
> > elements and for better defining the process of registering new
> > information elements at IANA the IPFIX WG will create an information
> > element developers guideline document.
> >
> > 3. The export of IPFIX flow records from IPFIX mediators introduces
a
> > set of potential issues at the protocol level, such as the loss of
> > information on the original exporter, loss of base time information,
> > loss of original options template information, etc. The IPFIX WG
will
> > define common ways to deal with these issues, by specifying
> guidelines
> > for the use of the IPFIX protocol on IPFIX mediators.
> >
> > 4. For supporting the aggregation of flow records at IPFIX mediators
> > the IPFIX WG will define how to export aggregated flow information
> using
> > IPFIX. An aggregated flow is essentially an IPFIX flow representing
> > packets from multiple original Flows sharing some set of common
> properties.
> >
> > 5. The IPFIX WG will investigate the use of the IPFIX protocol for
> > exporting
> > MIB objects, avoiding the need to define new IPFIX information
> elements
> > for existing management information base objects that are already
> fully
> > specified. This method requires the specification of new template
set
> > and options template sets to allow the export of MIB objects along
> > with IPFIX information elements.
> >
> > 6. The IPFIX MIB module (RFC 5815) defined a way to register packet
> > selector functions at IANA. The WG agreed that another method would
> > be preferable that requires a minor change of RFC 5815. The IPFIX WG
> > will produce a new version of RFC 5815 with small modifications of
> > the IANA actions and DESCRIPTION clauses in the the MIB modules.
> >
> > Oct 2011    Publish draft on guidelines for IE doctors
> > Oct 2011    Publish draft on IPFIX use at mediators
> > Oct 2011    Publish draft on intermediate aggregation
> > Oct 2011    Publish draft on exporting MIB objects
> > Oct 2011    Publish draft on data link IEs
> > Dec 2011    Publish draft revising RFC 5101
> > Dec 2011    Publish draft revising RFC 5102
> >
> > Apr 2012    Submit guidelines for IE doctors for publication as
> > Informational BCP RFC
> > Apr 2012    Submit draft on IPFIX use at mediators for publication
as
> > Standards track RFC
> > Apr 2012    Submit draft on intermediate aggregation for publication
> as
> > Standards track RFC
> > Apr 2012    Submit draft on data link IEs for publication as
> Standards
> > track RFC
> > Apr 2012    Submit draft revising RFC 5101 for publication as
> Standards
> > track RFC
> > Apr 2012    Submit draft revising RFC 5102 for publication as
> Standards
> > track RFC
> > Sep 2012    Submit draft on exporting MIB objects for publication as
> > Standards track RFC
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPFIX mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix