[nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-06.txt

["Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[e-mail]>]

NMRG, FYI....

The IESG has approved the document (as I reported a little while ago),
but there were some comments that we wanted to address. So Juergen
has posted a revision 6 to address those (as opposed to let the RFC-Editor
figure out the edits). This is in the RFC-Editor queue, so it is now being
processed to become RFC.

Just wanted to let you know the status and explain why there is a revision
06 in the I-D repository.

Bert Wijnen
document shepherd

below is the conversations Juergen and I had with the RFC-Editor.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RFC Editor" <[e-mail]>
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" 
<[e-mail]>; "Aaron Falk" <[e-mail]>; "RFC Editor" 
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Re: Informational RFC to be: 
draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt]


> Hi Bert,
>
> Thanks for the update.  We'll retrieve version -06 and continue
> processing.
>
> Sandy
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:50:35PM +0200, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Juergen has in the meanwhile posted a revision 06 of the
>> document (inlcuing .xml source). There we a few minor edits to addres
>> the IESG comments. Some comments also did not require an update.
>>
>> Below is Juergens check with me on his changes. I have indeed checked
>> this and I confirm that the changes made are appropriate and correct.
>> The comments that did not warrant changes have been responded to
>> and explained to the IESG members who made the comment.
>>
>> I have informed and explained to Tim polk why his comments did not
>> warrant an update (as Juergen also explains below).
>>
>> I think revision 6 (draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-06.txt) is now ready for
>> publication. Thank you all.
>>
>> Bert Wijnen
>> Document shepherd
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Re: Informational RFC to
>> be:draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt]
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:57:14PM +0200, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
>>
>> >Juergen, were you going to make the changes or are we just assuming
>> >the RFC-Editor will do so based on the input from IESG comments?
>> >Probably it is better if you make the edits?
>>
>> I have posted <draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-06.txt> and here is a
>> short summary of the resolution of the IESG comments.
>>
>> - Pasi Eronen's comments have been addressed as explained in an
>>  email to Pasi.
>>
>> - I did respond to Jari Arkko's comment in an email and I do not think a
>> further
>>  clarification is needed.
>>
>> - Chris Newman asked how versioning of the XML format is handled. The
>>  XML namespace includes a version number. In case the SNMP protocol
>>  is extended and changes to the XML representation are needed, a new
>>  updated schema and a new XML namespace is needed. Additional text
>>  has been added just before the RelaxNG schema definition. Clarifying
>>  text has been added as described in the email to Chris.
>>
>> - Tim Polk's comment (A) concerns the different citation styles
>>  xml2rfc uses for normal references and references to URI. As far a I
>>  can tell, the references are consistent. Comment (B) concerns
>>  filtering, anonymization, encryption recommendations and I believe
>>  the text got this right as there is a difference between raw traces
>>  that likely are stored (if at all) by the network operator and
>>  converted/filtered/anonymized traces that might be given to other
>>  parties for analysis.
>>
>> Please check and inform the RFC editor if everything is fine.
>>
>> /js
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "RFC Editor" <[e-mail]>
>> To: <mailto: [e-mail]>; 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "RFC Editor" <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Re: Informational RFC to be:
>> draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt]
>>
>>
>> >FYI: Resending with Bert's corrected address...
>> >
>> >On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:19:14AM -0700, RFC Editor wrote:
>> >>Hi Juergen and Bert,
>> >>
>> >>The IESG provided us with the "no problem with publication" message
>> >>below for <draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt>.  However, they
>> >>have provided comments for review in the I-D tracker.  Can you
>> >>please review and address the comments (as necessary) and let us know
>> >>when/if a revised version has been posted as an ID.
>> >>
>> >>Bert, please note that as document shepherd, we will wait to hear from
>> >>you that the comments have been addressed, or provide us with a
>> >>statement that the comments do not need to be addressed.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks!
>> >>
>> >>Sandy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>----- Forwarded message from The IESG <[e-mail]> -----
>> >>
>> >>From: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> >>To: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
>> >>Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>> >>Date: Tue,  2 Sep 2008 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
>> >>Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be:
>> >>draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt
>> >>
>> >>The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'SNMP Traffic
>> >>Measurements and Trace Exchange Formats'
>> >><draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt> as an Informational RFC.
>> >>
>> >>The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
>> >>datatracker
>> >>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14654&rfc_flag=0)
>> >>related to this document and determine whether or not they merit
>> >>incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot
>> >>and the comment log.
>> >>
>> >>The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu.
>> >>
>> >>A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
>> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>The process for such documents is described at
>> >>http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.
>> >>
>> >>Thank you,
>> >>
>> >>The IESG Secretary
>> >>
>> >>Technical Summary
>> >>
>> >>   The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) is widely deployed to
>> >>   monitor, control and (sometimes also) configure network elements.
>> >>   Even though the SNMP technology is well documented, it remains
>> >>   relatively unclear how SNMP is used in practice and what typical 
>> >> SNMP
>> >>   usage patterns are.
>> >>
>> >>   This document proposes to carry out large scale SNMP traffic
>> >>   measurements in order to develop a better understanding how SNMP is
>> >>   used in real world production networks.  It describes the 
>> >> motivation,
>> >>   the measurement approach, and the tools and data formats needed to
>> >>   carry out such a study.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Working Group Summary
>> >>
>> >>   This document was produced within the IRTF's Network Management
>> >>   Research Group (NMRG) and represents the consensus of all of the
>> >>   active contributors to this group.
>> >>
>> >>Document Quality
>> >>
>> >>   SNMP is quite widely deployed. Measurements on SNMP traffic are 
>> >> being
>> >>   performed by various tools and different organizations.
>> >>
>> >>Personnel
>> >>
>> >>   Bert Wijnen shephereded the document in the NMRG. Dan Romascanu is
>> >>   the shepherding AD.
>> >>
>> >>IESG Note
>> >>
>> >>The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in the
>> >>Operations and Management Area related to SNMP, but this does not 
>> >>prevent
>> >>publishing. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet
>> >>Standard.
>> >>
>> >>The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
>> >>any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
>> >>IETF review apart from the IETF Last Call on the allocation of an URI 
>> >>by
>> >>IANA and the IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
>> >>The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
>> >>discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.
>> >>
>> >>----- End forwarded message -----
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>