IETF conflict review for draft-schmitt-ipfix-tiny
conflict-review-schmitt-ipfix-tiny-01

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Nevil Brownlee ,
    draft-schmitt-ipfix-tiny@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-schmitt-ipfix-tiny-03

The IESG has completed a review of draft-schmitt-ipfix-tiny-03 consistent
with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'TinyIPFIX for smart meters
in constrained networks'  as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the
IPFIX concluded WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-schmitt-ipfix-tiny/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmitt-ipfix-tiny/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
re: Spencer's comment -- I'd always thought that WGs concluded when they were done -- disbanded or closed both seem like they have more negative connotations (disbanded sounds like the WG lost interest, and closed sounds like it was forced on them -- but, this is simply pontificating on my part.

[Ballot comment]
Re:"IPFIX closed WG" ...

I wish I knew what the canonical term is - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-4 offers "terminated" and "disbanded", but https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/ipfix/edit/state says "Concluded", and also offers "Dormant", which does appear in RFC2418.

Perhaps it's better to to match the current datatracker description?

[Ballot comment]
Purely editorial:
-
OLD:
  Using UDP on the transport layer for transmitting IPFIX Messages is
  therefore RECOMMENDED.

NEW:
  Using UDP on the transport layer for transmitting TinyIPFIX Messages is
  therefore RECOMMENDED.

-
OLD:
TinyIPFIX messages can be included n other transport

NEW:
TinyIPFIX messages can be included in other transport

-
OLD:
  In case pull request SHOULD also be supported by
  TinyIPFIX it is RECOMMENDED not to change the code of TinyIPFIX much
  to get along with the restricted memory available [schmitt2017].

NEW:
  In case pull request should also be supported by
  TinyIPFIX it is RECOMMENDED not to change the code of TinyIPFIX much
  to get along with the restricted memory available [schmitt2017].

Regards, Benoit