Cisco Systems Export of Application Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-10
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
Recuse
(Benoît Claise)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-19 for -09)
Unknown
To the AD: Could you update the ballot and approval notes to reflect the new name of the document, please. --- To the Authors The first section could really do with having text that explains (per the title and Abstract - but in a little more detail) that this is a Cisco-proprietary extension to IPFIX. I found a very skimpy sentence in Section 2 (which made me recall that I like it when the first section of a document is the Introduction :-)
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-19 for -09)
Unknown
I agree with the comments that the boilerplate for this sort of document is odd. I think we need to look at the choices we have for what to say at the beginnings of documents, and make sure there's a good, standard option for "this is not a consensus document; we're just putting it out for information." Or maybe this says that this should have gone through the ISE. In any case, I have no objection to publishing this, so here we go.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-08-09)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my issue.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -08)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-05-21 for -07)
Unknown
- The reference to http://www.cisco.com/ seems wonderfully vague, but unfortunately useless. What are the "Cisco systems assigned numbers"? (I agree with this bit of Stewart's discuss) - 2.1: I don't think I buy the congestion control use case. (While I don't like the security use case, I do agree others might like it.) - 4.1: is this encouraging folks to guess what IANA might allocate for IANA to act? Seems like a bad idea.o - 4.2: PANA-L* - I don't get how this works. How can you assign selector lengths for the PANA-L* in 4.2? - section 7: I don't get how some ElementId's are assigned here already but are marked as reserved in the IANA registry. - AppA: How is section 7 of an informative document normative?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-17 for -09)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concerns
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-18 for -09)
Unknown
As with similar "Company X's FooBar" documents, I think it is bizarre to let the boilerplate say that the IETF has consensus that this is what Cisco does. Though I am opposed to IETF work on DPI and supporting technologies like this as they are clearly hopeless and fundamentally harmful to the Internet, I have no technical arguments with this document and no objection to publishing what Cisco is doing in this regard.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(for -07)
Unknown