Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Shepherd write-up by Nevil Brownlee:

As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time.  This version is dated February 1, 2007.

    (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?

  Nevil Brownlee.  I have reviewed this draft, I believe it's ready
  for publication.

    (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?

  Yes.  This draft had a WGLC in August 2011, which raised important
  issues, mostly concerning its relationship to the PSAMP selection
  RFC.  It was revised to address those issues, and had a second
  WGLC in February 2012.  That raised a few further issues; these have
  been addressed in the current version.

    (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?


    (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.

  This draft raised IPR concerns, in the same manner as the PSAMP
  selection draft had done.  Nick Duffield (AT&T) commented that
  the AT&T IPR claim relates only to statistical sampling, and PSAMP
  handled this by saying "at least on of the sampling techniques
  must be implemented."
  In this draft, we have tightened that up a little by saying
  "a conforming implementation MUST implement at least the
  Property Match Filtering."

    (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?

  The WG has reached full consensus on this draft.

    (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.)


    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
  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?

  The ID nits checker finds six nots concerned with references.
  In my opinion these are all Editorial, and - since the IETF-83
  drafts deadline is very close now - can be fixed later on,
  say after IETF Last Call.

    (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].

  Yes.  There no references to non-existing documents.
  The only issue here are the ID nits mentioned above.

    (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 [RFC2434].  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?

  Yes.  No new IANA registries are required.

    (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?

  There are no sections in a formal language.

    (1.k)  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
    Flow selection is the process of selecting a subset of flows from all
    observed flows.  The Flow Selection Process may be located at an
    observation point, or on an IPFIX Mediator.  Flow selection reduces
    the effort of post-processing flow data and transferring Flow
    Records.  This document describes motivations for flow selection and
    presents flow selection techniques.  It provides an information model
    for configuring flow selection techniques and discusses what
    information about a flow selection process should be exported.

          Working Group Summary
    This document has been extensively reviewed by the WG, and has
    had two WGLCs.  I believe that all the issues raised have been
    resolved; we now have clear WG consensus.

          Document Quality
    I'm not aware of any implementations of IPFIX flow selection.
    Brian Trammell provided reviews that were particularly useful
    to the draft's authors.

  Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee
  AD: Dan Romascanu / Benoit Claise
  IANA Expert:  Nevil Brownlee / Juergen Quittek