Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling
draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-06

[Ballot discuss]
I don't think it makes sense to have DEFVAL clauses for read-only
objects. They are really used for object creation and are not
appropriate for describing the default beavior of protocol
implementations.

For example...

psampSampCountBasedAvail
psampSampTimeBasedAvail
psampSampRandOutOfNAvail
psampSampUniProbAvail
psampFiltPropMatchAvail                                                         
psampFiltHashAvail

[Ballot comment]
Please remove the citations from the Abstract

---

There are a couple of places where you should s/MIB/MIB module/
E.g. Section 5.1

---

I would have expected to see some discussion of
psampSampUniProbProbability and the non-support of NaN and Infinity
in the compliance clauses.

---

Should psampFiltHashFunction also include a reference to RFC 1141?

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup.
Waiting for RFC 5815bis to pass IETF LC and go together with this document to IESG review (because of the double dependency of the IANA considerations sections)

IANA has a question about the IANA Actions in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there is a single
IANA Action that must be completed.

In the Network Management Parameters Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

IANA will assign a new SMI number for psampMIB is the prefix

iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2

as follows:

Decimal: tba
Name: psampMIB
Description: Packet Sampling MIB
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA QUESTION --> IANA notes that the IANA Actions section refer to the
following Object Identifiers: psampSampCountBased, psampSampTimeBased,
psampSampRandOutOfN, psampSampUniProb, psampFiltPropMatch and psampFiltHash.
Are these objects in the ipfixSelectorMIB (decimal 194) MIB and thus
require no action from IANA? Otherwise, how and where should they be
registered?

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
this document.

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:  (Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling'
  as a 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 2011-06-15. 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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes extensions to the IPFIX MIB module
[RFC5815].  For IPFIX implementations that use packet Sampling
(PSAMP) techniques as described in [RFC5475], this memo defines the
PSAMP MIB module containing managed objects for providing information
on applied packet selection functions and their parameters.



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

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


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write-up submitted by Nevil Brownlee on May 9, 2011:

(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.  Version 00 appeared in March 2010, Version 03 (March 2011)
  makes changes suggested during WGLC.

(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?

  I believe that MIB Doctors were consulted for help with finding
  a textual convention for float64 objects (used in the current
  version).  However, a final check by MIB Doctors would be helpful.
  Apart from that, this is a small extension to the IPFIX MIB.

(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 are no such issues with this draft.

(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.)

  No.

(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?

  Yes.  Apart from one outdated reference, there are no ID nits.

(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].

  There is one normative reference to an I-D:
  draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats-01 (this is the reference mentioned
  in 1.g above).  This draft contains the textual convention
  this MIB uses for float64; any document using float objects
  needs this convention!

(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 [RFC5226]. 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.  The IANA requirements are clearly explained.

(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?

  Yes.  Using http://www.agentpp.com/mibtools/mibtools.html,
  the only things that raise warnings relate to to-be-assigned
  numbers and to Float64TC objects.

(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 memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
  for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
  In particular, it describes extensions to the IPFIX MIB module
  [RFC5815].  For IPFIX implementations that use packet Sampling
  (PSAMP) techniques as described in [RFC5475], this memo defines the
  PSAMP MIB module containing managed objects for providing information
  on applied packet selection functions and their parameters.

        Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?
  This document was originally intended to be a stand-alone MIB;
  once the WG had decided to produce an IPFIX MIB, PSAMP was left
  to be added as an extension to the IPFIX MIB.
  No controversy arose during the work on this MIB.

        Document Quality
  As well as its WGLC, this MIB was reviewed by Christian Henke and
  Benoit Claise.  No issues were found.