[IPFIX] IPFIX document status
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 22 November 2012 14:23 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 EB1CD21F8789 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 X5O+YGKw6vah for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB9D21F8743 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:23:38 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAMENbSa022155; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:23:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAMENbaG001608; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:23:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50AE3569.8030009@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:23:37 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX document status
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:40 -0000
Dear all,
I went through the following process for me. So let me share with the group.
draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO], [IE-DOCTORS],
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL]
Status: passed the IESG, will be in the RFC-EDITOR soon
draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-07
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis]
Informative Reference:
Status: one DISCUSS, waiting for rfc5102bis to go through the IESG
draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
Normative Reference: [RFC5102bis]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
Status: ready for WGLC
draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-07
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [IE-DOCTORS]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
Status: ready for AD review
draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-12
Normative Reference:
Informative Reference:
Status: waiting for the next version to pass the AD review
Conclusions:
1. [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], [IPFIX-A9N], and [IE-DOCTORS] have
normative references to each others.
So they will have to be published together.
Out of these four, RFC5101 is the bottleneck. So WGLC should start soon
2. While [IPFX-MED-PROTO] is only an informative reference for some
other documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it
could referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]
3. [IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] doesn't have any reference dependencies. While
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] is only informative a reference for some other
documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it could
referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]
Regards, Benoit
- [IPFIX] IPFIX document status Benoit Claise