Shepherd writeup
rfc6645-10

Document Title: IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology
Filename:        draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-07.txt
Intended Status: Informational


  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this 
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Al Morton has reviewed the memo, it is ready (+/- a few minor edits,
see the end of this write-up).
This will be a difficult read for those not familiar with at least
one of the areas covered here (IPFIX and Benchmarking), but the intended
audience of testers should be adequately served.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members 
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have 
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that 
        have been performed? 
The Current draft reflects extensive feedback, beginning with its
first review at a session in Dublin. Throughout the process, non-wg
people have been involved in reviews and WG last calls, especially
the IPFIX WG (obviously). 

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document 
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, 
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with 
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 
No.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
        this issue. 
No concerns and No IPR disclosures.

  (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? 
Quite a few bmwg participants and ipfix participants have given this a look
and now concur with the results. It took several WGLC before the version
reached consensus (with a few minor editorial changes).  
Examples of Test Implementation and Results were presented 
during development, which is compelling evidence of practicality.
There were WGLCs yielding long lists of comments/issues to deal with, 
and this was finally accomplished.

  (1.f) 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 
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 
No Appeals Threatened.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the 
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist 
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are 
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document 
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB 
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
All nits appear to be satisfied, with a few minor editorial changes needed.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and 
        informative? 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 
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references 
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If 
        so, list these downward references to support the Area 
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 
The Refs are split and the Normative Refs are stable. 
No DownRefs.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA 
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body 
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol 
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA 
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If 
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the 
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation 
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a 
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the 
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd 
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG 
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 
IANA section exists, making no IANA requests, as is usual in bmwg.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the 
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML 
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in 
        an automated checker? 
NA

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document 
        Announcement Write-Up. 

     Technical Summary 
For internetworking devices that perform routing or switching as 
their primary function, the likely reduction in traffic-handling
capacity when traffic monitoring is active continues to be a relevant 
question many years after it was first asked ("What happens when you
turn-on Netflow?"). 

This document provides a methodology and framework for quantifying 
the performance impact of monitoring of IP flows on a network device
and export of this information to a collector. It identifies the rate 
at which the IP flows are created, expired, and successfully exported 
as a new performance metric in combination with traditional 
throughput. The metric is only applicable to the devices compliant 
with the Architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470].

The methods are applicable to both internetworking devices that 
forward traffic and other devices that simply monitor traffic with 
non-intrusive access to transmission facilities.
The Forwarding Plane and Monitoring Plane represent two separate
functional blocks, each with its own performance capability. The
Forwarding Plane handles user data packets and is fully characterised 
by the metrics defined by [RFC2544]. 
The Monitoring Plane handles Flows which reflect the analysed 
traffic. The metric for Monitoring Plane performance is Flow Export 
Rate, and the benchmark is the Flow Monitoring Throughput.


     Working Group Summary 
Quite a few bmwg participants and ipfix participants have given this a look
and now concur with the results. 
Examples of Test Implementation and Results were presented 
during development, which is compelling evidence of practicality.
There were WGLCs yielding long lists of comments/issues to deal with, 
and this was finally accomplished. It took several WGLCs before this version
reached consensus (with a few minor editorial changes).  
 

     Document Quality 
All would agree that Paul Aitken provided very careful and complete 
reviews throughout the development process; he left no stone unturned.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Minor Editorial Points:

Sec3.3
s/each with it's own performance/each with its own performance/

Sec3.4.2, last para
s/The details how/The details of how/

Sec4
s/4. Measurement Set Up/4. Measurement Set-up/ 
<at least one other header like this, 4.2

Sec4.2, last para
OLD
It is therefore possible to run both laboratory and
   real deployment configurations, ...
NEW
It is therefore possible to run both non-production and
   real deployment configurations in the laboratory,...

Spacing around Section 4.3.5: text is indented too many spaces
(should be 3). 


Sec4.8
s/The MTU MUST be recorded/The Flow Export MTU MUST be recorded/

Sec4.9.2 Last para
s/same 100 of Flows twice./same number of Flows twice (100)./

Sec 5.6
<extra blank line in paragraph 2>

Section 6.4 and 6.5
>>> since these are options of 6.3, it makes more sense if
they are numbered 6.3.1 and 6.3.2:
s/6.4/6.3.1/
s/6.5/6.3.5/ everywhere on pages 24 and 25

Sec 7
s/c. all the possible Flow Record fields values/c. all the possible Flow Record field values/

Sec 8
s/Packet per flow/Packets per flow/
and
s/Be required to process/be required to process/



Back