====================================================
Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-06
====================================================
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated
in the title page header?

Internet Standard. The header indicates: "Category: Standards Track".
It is appropriate. The RFC obsoletes standards track RFC 5101.
there3 are multiple experimental and commercial implementations
of RFC5101. They have been tested at interop events. Errata's
of RFC5101 have been solved without invalidating existing
implementations.

(2) 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 document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
protocol that serves for transmitting Traffic Flow information over
the network. In order to transmit Traffic Flow information from an
Exporting Process to a 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 Template Records are
carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting
Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process. This document obsoletes RFC
5101.

Working Group Summary:

The documents obsoletes RFC 5101. It does not change the technical
content of the RFC5101 protocol specification, but it add several
clarifications. The WG jointly worked on improving RFC5101 based
on implementations experience and document reviews. There is strong
consensus on the document.

Document Quality:

This is an update of RFC 5101 based on a lot of practical experiences
with implementing and operating the IPFIX protocol. Changes compared
to RFC 5101 result from these experiences.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally
and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG
for publication.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not
ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the draft and is fully convinced
that it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members
during WG last call. Several comments were made and have been
addressed when updating the document after the reviews. The
shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity,
AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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.

There are no such issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this
document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion
regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR disclosure filed. It is known by the WG
and has been discussed. It is not different from the IPR
disclosures that had already been filed for RFC 5101.

(9) 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 as a whole understands and agrees with it.

(10) 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 publicly
available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-
Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check
needs to be thorough.

There are a few nits.
- The reference to draft-claise-ipfix-
information-model-rfc5102bis-01 is outdated and has a wrong
author list.
- The reference to draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-03
is outdated.
These can be fixed in an update after IETF last call.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No further formal review required except for a thorough review
by IANA which will be conducted anyway.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

Yes, there is a references to draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis
which is already in the RFC editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why,
and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this
document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not
in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

RFC 5101 will be obsoleted by this document. This is explicitly
mentioned in the abstract and introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions
that the document makes are associated with the appropriate
reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created
IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry
has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Most tet in the IANA considerations section repeats what has
already been stated in RFC5101. The only new action for IANA
is replacing references in IANA registries to RFC5101 with
references to this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA registries requested by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None to be done.