Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol
draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-09-04
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-08-29
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-08-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2013-08-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2013-07-16
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2013-04-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Document shepherd changed to Nevil Brownlee |
2013-04-09
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2012-12-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-12-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2012-12-04
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-11-29
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-11-27
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-11-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-11-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-11-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-11-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-11-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-11-26
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-19
|
08 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08.txt |
2012-11-18
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2012-11-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-11-15
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-11-15
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-11-15
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-11-15
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: Aggregated Flow: A Flow, as defined by [ … [Ballot comment] The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: Aggregated Flow: A Flow, as defined by [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis], derived from a set of zero or more original Flows within a defined Aggregation Interval. The primary difference between a Flow and an Aggregated Flow in the general case is that the time interval (i.e., the two-tuple of start and end times) of a Flow is derived from information about the timing of the packets comprising the Flow, while the time interval of an Aggregated Flow is often externally imposed. Note that an Aggregated Flow is defined in the context of an Intermediate Aggregation Process only. Once an Aggregated Flow is exported, it is essentially a Flow as in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and can be treated as such. The way the second phrase is written confuses me. If 'the time interval of an Aggregated Flow' is externally imposed, this means that there are exceptions? In which cases? And in these cases what is the specific difference that makes that Flow to be Aggregated? Section 5.1.1 says: Each counter for an Original Flow is divided by the number of time _units_ the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean count rate. What is the meaning of _units_? |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I'll follow up on Stephen's Comment and ask about the requirements language. There is very little RFC 2119 language, and some of it … [Ballot comment] I'll follow up on Stephen's Comment and ask about the requirements language. There is very little RFC 2119 language, and some of it seems unnecessary: Additional such Information Elements SHOULD be registered with IANA on an as-needed basis. Is the RFC 2119 language really needed anywhere? |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] About half way through I read the other AD discuss/comment positions that were already entered and noted that I was starting to feel … [Ballot comment] About half way through I read the other AD discuss/comment positions that were already entered and noted that I was starting to feel the same way Stephen did in his first comment. At 4.3 pages/requirement, the draft seems rather long winded to standardize aggregation of IPFIX flow data. I guess the community finds this approach acceptable so that's good enough for me. |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-14
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-11-13
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2012-11-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I was a bit puzzled as to what exactly is being specified here. It seems like there's little normative text here and … [Ballot comment] - I was a bit puzzled as to what exactly is being specified here. It seems like there's little normative text here and most of that is in draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol, so I wondered it it wouldn't have been better for this to be an informational guide and for all the normative stuff to be in the mediation protocol draft that a developer might be more likely to read? To be clear: I'm not fussed about whether this is standards track or informational nor about the use of 2119 language, but more about whether all the stuff that a developer might need is in the right document(s). (57 pages of mostly advice is the kind of thing that'll get ignored:-) Maybe if you added a sentence in the intro saying that only bits of section 5 and section 7 are normative (or whatever is the case) that might help the reader? - 5.1.1 defines a bunch of methods, one of which is the "simulated process" method of distributing counters over aggregated flow intervals, however there is nothing in the description of the simulated process that could be directly implemented that I can see. That's puzzling so I don't know what code might be written to do this, that'd result in interop. The "Direct" method seems equally vague btw. - 5.1.1, "SHOULD accept ... in any reasonable order" seems overly vague, esp. when you say that the meaning of "reasonable order" might not be clear when writing code. - 6.4, are the "should" statements here meant as 2119 SHOULDs or not? - the examples look great! thanks |
2012-11-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-11-13
|
07 | Ron Bonica | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-11-13
|
07 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-11-12
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-11-12
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] In Section 5.3.1 the URL quoted for the IPFIX Information Elements registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html does not exist. The IANA Note … [Ballot discuss] In Section 5.3.1 the URL quoted for the IPFIX Information Elements registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html does not exist. The IANA Note in section 7.2.4 is supposed to be left in the text? If not, is it necessary to mention someplace else the issue of backwards compatibility with the IE value in NetFlow version 9? Same question for the IANA note in Section 10. |
2012-11-12
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: Aggregated Flow: A Flow, as defined by [ … [Ballot comment] The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: Aggregated Flow: A Flow, as defined by [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis], derived from a set of zero or more original Flows within a defined Aggregation Interval. The primary difference between a Flow and an Aggregated Flow in the general case is that the time interval (i.e., the two-tuple of start and end times) of a Flow is derived from information about the timing of the packets comprising the Flow, while the time interval of an Aggregated Flow is often externally imposed. Note that an Aggregated Flow is defined in the context of an Intermediate Aggregation Process only. Once an Aggregated Flow is exported, it is essentially a Flow as in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and can be treated as such. The way the second phrase is written confuses me. If 'the time interval of an Aggregated Flow' is externally imposed, this means that there are exceptions? In which cases? And in these cases what is the specific difference that makes that Flow to be Aggregated? Section 5.1.1 says: Each counter for an Original Flow is divided by the number of time _units_ the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean count rate. What is the meaning of _units_? |
2012-11-12
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-11-10
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-11-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] A couple of minor comments; no email response necessary: -- Sections 5.3.1 and 12.2 -- You use three slightly different URIs in the … [Ballot comment] A couple of minor comments; no email response necessary: -- Sections 5.3.1 and 12.2 -- You use three slightly different URIs in the document for the IANA registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html (in Section 5.3.1) http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix (in Section 10) http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml (in Section 12.2) The second is the form that IANA prefers, and it will redirect to the correct page; please change them all to use that form. (The third will currently work; the first does not (because the registry was converted from HTML to XML)... but the second will continue to work even if they reformat the page in JSON or whatever.) -- Section 7.2.4 -- [IANA NOTE: This Information Element is compatible with Information Element 3 as used in NetFlow version 9.] Is this meant to remain after publication? Or should you say that the RFC Editor should remove this note? |
2012-11-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-11-09
|
07 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA actions requested in this document IANA understands that, upon … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the IANA actions requested in this document IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are twelve actions which IANA must complete. All of the actions are additions of IPFIX Information Elemenets to the IPFIX Information Element registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml Currently the IPFIX Information Elements registry is maintained through expert review as defined in RFC 5226. IANA Question -> has the document been reviewed by the IPFIX Information Elements registry expert? ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: originalFlowsPresent Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: deltaCount Status: Description: The non-conservative count of Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow. Non-conservative counts need not sum to the original count on re-aggregation. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: originalFlowsInitiated Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: deltaCount Status: Description: The conservative count of Original Flows whose first packet is represented within this Aggregated Flow. Conservative counts must sum to the original count on re-aggregation. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: originalFlowsCompleted Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: deltaCount Status: Description: The conservative count of Original Flows whose last packet is represented within this Aggregated Flow. Conservative counts must sum to the original count on re-aggregation. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: 3 Name: deltaFlowCount Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: deltaCount Status: Description: The conservative count of Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow; may be distributed via any of the methods expressed by the valueDistributionMethod Information Element. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfSourceIPAddress Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct source IP address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without regard to IP version. This Information Element is preferred to the IP-version-specific counters, unless it is important to separate the counts by version. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: Data Type: Data Type Semantics: Status: Description: Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct destination IP address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow, without regard to IP version. This Information Element is preferred to the version-specific counters below, unless it is important to separate the counts by version. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfSourceIPv4Address Data Type: unsigned32 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct source IPv4 address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfDestinationIPv4Address Data Type: unsigned32 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct destination IPv4 address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfSourceIPv6Address Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct source IPv6 address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: distinctCountOfDestinationIPv6Address Data Type: unsigned64 Data Type Semantics: totalCount Status: Description: The count of distinct destination IPv6 address values for Original Flows contributing to this Aggregated Flow. Units: Range: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ElementID: [ tbd ] Name: valueDistributionMethod Data Type: unsigned8 Data Type Semantics: Status: Current Description: A description of the method used to distribute the counters from Contributing Flows into the Aggregated Flow records described by an associated scope, generally a Template. The method is deemed to apply to all the non-key Information Elements in the referenced scope for which value distribution is a valid operation; if the originalFlowsInitiated and/or originalFlowsCompleted Information Elements appear in the Template, they are not subject to this distribution method, as they each infer their own distribution method. This is intended to be a complete set of possible value distribution methods; it is encoded as follows: +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Value | Description | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | 0 | Unspecified: The counters for an Original Flow are | | | explicitly not distributed according to any other method | | | defined for this Information Element; use for arbitrary | | | distribution, or distribution algorithms not described by | | | any other codepoint. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 1 | Start Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are | | | added to the counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow | | | containing the start time of the Original Flow. This | | | should be assumed the default if value distribution | | | information is not available at a Collecting Process for | | | an Aggregated Flow. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 2 | End Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are added | | | to the counters of the appropriate Aggregated Flow | | | containing the end time of the Original Flow. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 3 | Mid Interval: The counters for an Original Flow are added | | | to the counters of a single appropriate Aggregated Flow | | | containing some timestamp between start and end time of | | | the Original Flow. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 4 | Simple Uniform Distribution: Each counter for an Original | | | Flow is divided by the number of time intervals the | | | Original Flow covers (i.e., of appropriate Aggregated | | | Flows sharing the same Flow Key), and this number is | | | added to each corresponding counter in each Aggregated | | | Flow. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 5 | Proportional Uniform Distribution: Each counter for an | | | Original Flow is divided by the number of time _units_ | | | the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean count rate. | | | This mean count rate is then multiplied by the number of | | | time units in the intersection of the duration of the | | | Original Flow and the time interval of each Aggregated | | | Flow. This is like simple uniform distribution, but | | | accounts for the fractional portions of a time interval | | | covered by an Original Flow in the first and last time | | | interval. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | 6 | Simulated Process: Each counter of the Original Flow is | | | distributed among the intervals of the Aggregated Flows | | | according to some function the Intermediate Aggregation | | | Process uses based upon properties of Flows presumed to | | | be like the Original Flow. This is essentially an | | | assertion that the Intermediate Aggregation Process has | | | no direct packet timing information but is nevertheless | | | not using one of the other simpler distribution methods. | | | The Intermediate Aggregation Process specifically makes | | | no assertion as to the correctness of the simulation. | | | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | 7 | Direct: The Intermediate Aggregation Process has access | | | to the original packet timings from the packets making up | | | the Original Flow, and uses these to distribute or | | | recalculate the counters. | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ IANA understands that these are the only actions requied to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. |
2012-11-09
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-07
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-11-06
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
2012-11-06
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-11-06
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-11-06
|
07 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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? Standards Track. Needs to be so that all implementations will aggregate IPFIX flow data in the same way. Yes, its header says 'Standards Track.' (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 provides a common implementation-independent basis for the interoperable application of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol to the handling of Aggregated Flows, which are IPFIX Flows representing packets from multiple Original Flows that share some set of common properties. Working Group Summary This draft attracted real discussion on the IPFIX list, and took time to reach consensus on its final approach, i.e. "through a detailed terminology and a descriptive Intermediate Aggregation Process architecture, including a specification of methods for Original Flow counting and counter distribution across intervals." Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? I'm not aware of any, so far. Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review ... ? Rahul Patel was a strong contributor to the discussion, Paul Aitken provided a very thorough review. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Nevil Brownlee Who is the Responsible Area Director? Benoit Claise (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. I have followed this draft carefully from its -00 version, particularly it's notion of of 'spatial aggregation,' a topic which needs careful definition of its terms! I feel 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? No. (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. This draft follows tha IPFIX naming conventions; those are its only external dependencies. (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. No (but see section 8). (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 (see section 8 for more detail) (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. We (the IPFIX WG) were unaware of any IPR for this draft until it was in WG Last Call. Carter Bullard raised the question, we now have two IPR decparations (Avaya and Cisco) and no others have come forward. (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 has reached strong consensus on this draft. (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. ID-nits says "0 errors" (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews required. (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? Normative reference to I-D 5101-bis. IPFIX 5101bis (and 5102bis) are close to WG Last Call, that's now the WG's highest-priority activity. (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. No. (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). The draft's IANA Considerations only requires some new IPFIX Information Elements to be assigned, its instructions for that are clear and consistent. (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. No new registries. (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. No sections in a formal language. |
2012-11-01
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2012-11-01
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2012-11-01
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2012-11-01
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG (ipfix) to consider the following document: - 'Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document provides a common implementation-independent basis for the interoperable application of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol to the handling of Aggregated Flows, which are IPFIX Flows representing packets from multiple Original Flows sharing some set of common properties. It does this through a detailed terminology and a descriptive Intermediate Aggregation Process architecture, including a specification of methods for Original Flow counting and counter distribution across intervals. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1715/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1726/ |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Note added 'Nevil Brownlee (n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-11-15 |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-10-30
|
07 | Benoît Claise | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-10-30
|
07 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-trammell-ipfix-a9n |
2012-10-11
|
07 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07.txt |
2012-08-22
|
06 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-06.txt |
2012-07-06
|
05 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-05.txt |
2012-06-27
|
04 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04.txt |
2012-03-19
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-03 | |
2012-03-15
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Avaya Inc. 's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-03 | |
2012-02-27
|
03 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-03.txt |
2012-02-27
|
02 | Brian Trammell | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-02.txt |
2012-02-03
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-01.txt |
2011-11-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-00.txt |