[Last-Call] Opsdir last call partial review of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02

Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 20 December 2019 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietf.org
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B736712087D; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:23:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.113.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <157686621669.5042.12598226466109750134@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:23:36 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/h7iBcvXLqT3GC_k1shGm9ZQ39ao>
Subject: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call partial review of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:23:37 -0000

Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Reviewer: Joe Clarke
Review result: Not Ready

I have been assigned as a secondary reviewer on behalf of the ops directorate
to review this draft.  This draft defines YANG modules for PSAMP with bulk
export via IPFIX.  It contends that RFC 6728 defines a single YANG module that
couples IPFIX export with PSAMP sampling.  It also puts an overly onerous
requirement that a device support SCTP.  The aim of this draft is to decouple
the sampling and exporting and allow for other export transports.

I think Mehmet raised some valid points in his review around why this is being
done as an AD-sponsored document.  While I am not a PSAMP/IPFIX expert, the
document and approach seem reasonable to me, and I wonder why this wasn't
discussed more in opsawg as a replacement for 6728.  I also agree with Mehmet
that the 6728 authors should be included on this for a deeper technical review.

One other point that struck me as I read this document was that 6728 is being
obsoleted by this, but there are references to things defined within it.  I
would think that anything that this new document will use in a normative
fashion should be explicitly stated in this document.  Such examples are found
in Section 3 where text like "based on [RFC6728]" is used.