Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03 Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling Editors: Thomas Dietz, Benoit Claise. Juergen Quittek Intended status: Standards Track 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 September 17, 2008. (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. Version 00 appeared in March 2010, Version 03 (March 2011) makes changes suggested during WGLC. (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? I believe that MIB Doctors were consulted for help with finding a textual convention for float64 objects (used in the current version). However, a final check by MIB Doctors would be helpful. Apart from that, this is a small extension to the IPFIX MIB. (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 are no such issues with this draft. (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? Yes. Apart from one outdated reference, there are no ID nits. (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]. There is one normative reference to an I-D: draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats-01 (this is the reference mentioned in 1.g above). This draft contains the textual convention this MIB uses for float64; any document using float objects needs this convention! (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 [RFC5226]. 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. The IANA requirements are clearly explained. (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? Yes. Using http://www.agentpp.com/mibtools/mibtools.html, the only things that raise warnings relate to to-be-assigned numbers and to Float64TC objects. (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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes extensions to the IPFIX MIB module [RFC5815]. For IPFIX implementations that use packet Sampling (PSAMP) techniques as described in [RFC5475], this memo defines the PSAMP MIB module containing managed objects for providing information on applied packet selection functions and their parameters. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document was originally intended to be a stand-alone MIB; once the WG had decided to produce an IPFIX MIB, PSAMP was left to be added as an extension to the IPFIX MIB. No controversy arose during the work on this MIB. Document Quality As well as its WGLC, this MIB was reviewed by Christian Henke and Benoit Claise. No issues were found. Nevil Brownlee, Mon 9 May 11