IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Framework
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-09

[Ballot comment]
Ari Keränen had these comments:

IPFIX, PSAMP and quite a few other abbreviations are never expanded.


Section 5.3:

      [...]
      value of the "flowKeyIndicator" needs to be modified when
      modifying the data structure defined by an original Template.

At least for someone not familiar with the protocol, it was not clear
how the value needs to be modified in this case.

[Ballot comment]
Abstract:
>    This document describes a framework for IPFIX Mediation.  This
>    framework extends the IPFIX reference model by defining the IPFIX
>    Mediator components.

  For the uninitiated, it would be good to add a sentence about what
  "IPFIX mediation" *is*.

[Ballot comment]
Expand the IPFIX acronym in the title, Abstract, and
Introduction. All acronyms need to be expanded on their first use.

When referring to a particular section (e.g., Section 2), the
word "Section" needs to be capitalized.

[Ballot comment]
Section 8 says:

  IPFIX Mediation reuses the general information models from [RFC5102]
  and [RFC5477].  However, several Intermediate Processes would
  potentially require additional Information Elements as follows:   
                                                                   
Is "would potentially" code for "the Information Model is out of scope
for this document"?

[Ballot discuss]
Just a couple of very small points that could be fixed with an RFC
Editor's note.

---

Are we sure this document does not update the IPFIX architecture making
it an Update to RFC 5470?

---

I think that RFC 5470 needs to be a Normative reference.
Also RFC 5655 for its use in Section 9.
Possibly some of the others (e.g., those referenced from Section 9),
although I don't feel strongly

[Ballot comment]
From a protocol conversion point of view, this intermediate entity may provide conversion into IPFIX, or conversion of IPFIX transport protocols (e.g., from UDP to SCTP) to improve the export reliability.

I assume that you mean to improve export reliability over a sub-network (or a network segment) since you cannot improve the  reliability of the UDP segment, or an SCTP segment using a low reliability mode.

=======

TLS & DTLS  used without expansion

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IPFIX Mediation: Framework) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'IPFIX Mediation: Framework'
  as an Informational RFC

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 2010-12-08. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework/

(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?

Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally
and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG
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?

The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members during
two WG last calls. Several comments were made and have been addressed
when updating the document after the WGLCs.
The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(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?

The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review.

(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.

There is no such concern.

(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?

There is a strong consensus in the IPFIX WG to publish this version
of the document. There are no particular issues in the document
without strong consensus in the IPFIX WG.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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.)

There was no appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document shepherd checked for ID nits. There is a capitalized
"SHOUND" in section 9, 2nd paragraph, line 9, that needs to be changed
to lower case "should". Some references need to be updated, because
referenced documents have been updated or obsoleted.
All of these changes can easily be made in the next update that is
expected 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].

Four reference have been outdated since the document was submitted.
This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references may need
an update by then.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document states correctly that there it has no actions for IANA.

(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 such sections.

(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

This document describes a framework for IPFIX Mediation. This
framework extends the IPFIX reference model by defining the IPFIX
Mediator components.

Working Group Summary

The mediation framework was added to the IPIFX charter in 2008.
The document was discussed at all meetings since then and had
several revisions. There was nothing special about this document.

Document Quality

The document underwent two WG last call in the IPFIX WG.
This way, a high document quality has been achieved already.

Personnel

Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the
responsible Area director.

The submission to the IESG seems to be the result of a track error or mis-understanding. The document is returned to the WG to complete the consensus process, including WGLC. After the WG will reach consensus for submission to the IESG a new PROTO write-up will be submitted.

PROTO wrte-up by Juergen Quittek:



Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-07
============================================================

  (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?
         
Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally
and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG
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?

The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members during
two WG last calls. Several comments were made and have been addressed
when updating the document after the WGLCs.
The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

  (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?

The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review.

  (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.

There is no such concern.

  (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?

There is a strong consensus in the IPFIX WG to publish this version
of the document. There are no particular issues in the document
without strong consensus in the IPFIX WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There was no appeal.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document shepherd checked for ID nits. The IETF Trust Provisions
Section needs to be updated, since it changed after the current version
was posted. Some references need to be updated, because they have been
published recently as RFCs. Also, in section 6.1 the document uses IPv4
addresses from the range 10.1.1.x in examples. These should be replaced
by addresses of the ranges defined in RFC3330: 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x
or 203.0.113.x.
All of these changes can easily be made in the next update that is
expected 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].

One reference have been outdated since the document was submitted
(IPFIX.MIB). This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references
may need an update by then.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document states correctly that there it has no actions for IANA.

  (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 such sections.

  (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

  This document specifies an improvement to the PR-SCTP
  export specified in the IPFIX specifications in RFC5101.
  This method offers several advantages such as the ability to
  calculate Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate export of
  Template Withdrawal Messages, immediate reuse of Template IDs
  within an SCTP stream, and reduced demands on the Collecting
  Process.


Working Group Summary

  Flow-based measurement is a popular method for various network
  monitoring usages.  The sharing of flow-based information for
  monitoring applications having different requirements raises some
  open issues in terms of measurement system scalability, flow-based
  measurement flexibility, and export reliability that IPFIX Mediation
  may help resolve.  This document describes some problems related to
  flow-based measurement that network administrators have been facing,
  and then describes IPFIX Mediation applicability examples along with
  the problems.

Document Quality

  The document underwent two WG last call in the IPFIX WG.
  This way, a high document quality has been achieved already.

Personnel

  Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the
  responsible Area director.