IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-09

[Ballot discuss]
#1) The SECDIR review pointed out that the trust model needs to be explained.  Atsushi suggested that there were two scenarios and they should probably go in the follow-on framework document.  If that is the case, then a normative reference is needed to point from the trust model text/section to that particular section in the framework document.  However, the -06 of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework does not seem to include this text.  Is it going to be included or is the trust model going to be included in problem-statement?

[Ballot discuss]
#1) The SECDIR review pointed out that the trust model needs to be explained.  Atsushi suggested that there were two scenarios and they should probably go in the follow-on framework document.  If that is the case, then a normative reference is needed to point from the trust model text/section to that particular section in the framework document.  However, the -06 of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework does not seem to include this text.  Is it going to be included or is the trust model going to be included in problem-statement?

[Ballot discuss]
#1) The SECDIR review pointed out that the trust model needs to be explained.  Atsushi suggested that there were two scenarios and they should probably go in the follow-on framework document.  If that is the case, then a normative reference is needed to point from the trust model text/section to that particular section in the framework document.  However, the -06 of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework does not seem to include this text.  Is it going to be included or is the trust model going to be included in problem-statement?

[Ballot comment]
Just a tweak to the Abstract...
The Introduction says...
  This document addresses that issue by defining IPFIX Mediation
...and that appears to be true. So it would be good if the Abstract
made that point. As it currently stands, the Abstract reads like IPFIX
Mediation is a pre-existing concept.

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.