Subject: [ipfix] Please publish four IPFIX drafts as RFCs

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:30:20 +1200

Hi David and Bert:

Following our meeting at IETF in Paris we agreed to revise the drafts
to reflect the discussions there, then run another WG last call.

That last call produced quite a lot of discussion on the IPFIX mailing
list, resulting in editorial changes to the Architecture, Protocol
and Info Model drafts.  We have now completed those discussions, reaching
WG consensus on all four drafts.

This note is our formal request to you (our ADs), asking you to
submit the four IPFIX drafts to IESG for publication as RFS.
The drafts are:

  Standards Track    draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-19.txt
  Standards Track    draft-ietf-ipfix-info-11.txt

  Informational      draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-09.txt
  Informational      draft-ietf-ipfix-as-06.txt

All four of the drafts have been checked by idnits, no problems
were found.  I've appended the 'submit to IESG checklist'
responses for all four below.

During our recent discussions it became clear that there's plenty
of interest in adding new Information Elements (IEs) to the IPFIX
info model.  The architecture makes it fairly easy to do that,
and in our IANA Considerations sections we've said that we'll use
'WG Consensus' to decide which new IEs should be added.  On the
IPFIX list at the end of August we discussed how we'd reach such
a consensus; we propose to do this as follows:

 1) Implementors are free to develop their own Information Elements
    using the Vendor IE number sapce.

 2) Proposals for new elements to be included in the 'standard' space
    (i.e. added to the IANA-maintained list) must be posted to the
    IPFIX mailing list for comment.

 3) The WG CoChairs, and the editors of the IPFIX Protocol and Info
    model drafts will moderate 'new element' discussions until rough
    consensus is reached.

 4) The IPFIX CoChairs will then request IANA to add the new elements to
    the 'standard space' list.

Cheers, Nevil (& Dave)
IPFIX co-chairs

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                 Computer Science Department | ITSS
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941           The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Document Title:     IPFIX Protocol Specification
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-19.txt

Document Title:     Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-info-11.txt

Document Title:     Architecture for IP Flow Information Export
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-09.txt

Document Title:     IPFIX Applicability
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-as-06.txt

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

An adequate review by key WG members was performed.
I do not have concerns about depth and breadth of the reviews.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

I do not have such concerns.

   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?

There is a solid WG consensus on the content of the draft.
The IPFIX system was been tested in an interoperation event immediately
before the Paris IETF meeting.  Most features of the five implementations
wrked well, showing the soundness of the documents.  The few issues
from that testing have been resolved in the submitted version of
the drafts.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

Yes.  

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The references are split into normative and informative.
The normative references include cross-references between
these four drafts; the four will need to be published as four RFCs
at the same time.

   1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Title:     IPFIX Protocol Specification
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-19.txt

Technical Summary

This document specifies the IPFIX protocol that serves for
transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network.  In order
to transmit IP traffic flow information from an exporting process to
an information collecting process, a common representation of flow
data and a standard means of communicating them is required. This
document describes how the IPFIX data and templates records are
carried over a congestion-aware transport protocol from an IPFIX
exporting process to an IPFIX collecting process.

Working Group Summary

This document was a regular WG document.  There is strong consensus
in the working group that this framework is an appropriate solution.

Protocol Quality

The document was thoroughly reviewed by the IPFIX WG.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Title:     Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
Document reference: draft-ietf-ipfix-info-11.txt

Technical Summary

This document defines an information model for the IP Flow Information
eXport (IPFIX) protocol.  It is used by the IPFIX protocol for
encoding measured traffic information and information related to the
traffic Observation Point, the traffic Metering Process and the
Exporting Process.  Although developed for the IPFIX protocol, the
model is defined in an open way that easily allows using it in other
protocols, interfaces, and applications.

Working Group Summary

This document was a regular WG document.  There is strong consensus
in the working group that this framework is an appropriate solution.

Protocol Quality

The document was thoroughly reviewed by the IPFIX WG.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/