[OPSAWG] FW: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call partial review of draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02

["Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>]

I think this draft should be reviewed and commented by OPSAWG WG before
publishing as "AD sponsored standard track RFC" obsoleting RFC 6728.
(RFC 6728 authors CCed).

BR,
Mehmet

-----Original Message-----
From: OPS-DIR <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue via
Datatracker
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 7:33 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call partial review of
draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02


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

Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
Review result: Not Ready

I reviewed the document "YANG Data Models for the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) Protocol, Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol, and Bulk Data Export
(draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02) as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit
of the operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: I-D Exists

Summary:
The document aims to replace the YANG model for packet sampling (PSAMP) and
bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol originally defined in
standard track RFC 6728 (Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols). The YANG
data model in the document also aims to be conform with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. FYI: The YANG
model is currently in review by Martin Bjorklund from YANG modeling
perspective.

The document further aims to decouple the PSAMP collecting process and the
IPFIX exporting process as well as defining an exporting process which does
not require SCTP support. The document tries to enable the export frequency
to be controlled by the exporting process, support of large IPFIX mediation
functions, and flexible referencing of interfaces. The new functionality
described above and the necessary restructuring of the model in RFC 6728
might become useful if done properly as an extension to RFC 6728.

However based on missing IPFIX and PSAMP expertise, unfortunately I'm not
able to give a solid statement on to whether the document is capable to
replace the standard track RFC 6728. Moreover the new functionality and
changes to the original model require thorough and in-depth review by IPFIX
and PSAMP experts.

Also as the document is largely based on RFC 6728, introducing the authors
of RFC 6728 as co-authors and involving them for review would very useful.
As a minimum they need to be involved as reviewers and mentioned in the
Acknowledgments section.

The document is proposed to publish as an AD sponsored draft, which is not
an issue per se. It is also not forbidden but very unusual that an AD
sponsored draft is proposed to replace a standard track RFC. I would be
highly interested to know why this path has been chosen.

However I believe it is a substantial issue that this draft has not been
discussed and supported in any IETF maillist until today. There was only a
short presentation in OPSAWG WG session one year ago without any record of
support. The authors are not known at IETF and have not written any other
than the current draft. The authors have most likely BBF background.

As IPFIX and PSAMP WGs have already concluded, I would like to recommend
_urgently_ to introduce the draft to OPSAWG maillist and ask for support. It
is IMO essentially important that the document gets discussed and reviewed
by IPFIX and PSAMP people available in OPSAWG and by the authors of RFC 6728
before publication. It also needs to be clarified whether the draft has been
already or is going to be implemented.

In case there is no support in OPSAWG WG for this draft to replace the
standard track RFC 6728 I believe it would be appropriate to publish it as
an "AD sponsored Experimental RFC". It can still become a standard track RFC
after getting implementation reports and appropriate community feedback on
its usage.

Sorry for not being the right expert reviewer for the draft content.
Therefore I've set the review result to "Partially Completed - extra
reviewer is to be assigned" and hope the draft gets a proper review in
OPSAWG WG and by the authors of RFC 6728.

Mehmet


_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir