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
(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 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
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?
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:
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.
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