Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information Export
draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-05-07
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-05-07
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2012-05-07
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-04-24
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-03-27
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-03-26
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-26
|
03 | Thomas Dietz | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-03.txt |
2012-03-25
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-Feb-2012 raised several small concerns. Each individual one is minor, but taken together, they … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-Feb-2012 raised several small concerns. Each individual one is minor, but taken together, they are sufficiently confusing that I would like to see them resolved. Discussion has resolved all but one of the concerns. It is: > > In the example of the export table in section 5.4, there are two > blocks of export entries, on with ipfixExportIndex 7, and one > with 8. They are mirrors of each other except that they reverse > which transport session is primary, and which is secondary. > There is no explanation of why both are present. And there is > no explanation of why the settings in index 7 are used, rather > than those in index 8. |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Russ Housley | Ballot discuss text updated for Russ Housley |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] This looks like a pretty solid MIB module and I have no objection to its publication. I do, however, see a few small … [Ballot comment] This looks like a pretty solid MIB module and I have no objection to its publication. I do, however, see a few small points you might want to look at. --- I think the copyright statement in the main Descirption clause should be updated to the current year. --- Revision history Description clause. The plural of erratum is errata. --- I may be mistaken, but I thought there was a recommendation on the maximum length of object names that capped them at 32 characters. There are several really long names in this module: the lnngest I found was the 50 character ipfixTransportSessionOptionsTemplateRefreshTimeout --- I would need to check, but I am pretty sure there is an IANA TC for protocol numbers as used in ipfixTransportSessionProtocol, but if not I think the pointer to http://www.iana.org/ could be improved. --- Unless you intend to support all address types defined by the TC InetAddressType, I think the conformance clauses of all objects with this Syntax need to limit the support, and the description clauses for the objects should state what is and is not supported. |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-03-15
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-03-13
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-Feb-2012 raised several small concerns. Each individual one is minor, but taken together, they … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-Feb-2012 raised several small concerns. Each individual one is minor, but taken together, they are sufficiently confusing that I would like to see them resolved. Joel's review includes these three concerns: > > The description in the first paragraph of 5.2 on the Template table > is written in such a way as to lead the reader to think the > Observation Domain is somehow associated with the Transport Session > (which table provides the device mode which is discussed in that > text.) Could you split the Observation Domain reference out to a > separate sentence (possibly before the reference to the Transport > Session)? > > In the example of the export table in section 5.4, there are two > blocks of export entries, on with ipfixExportIndex 7, and one > with 8. They are mirrors of each other except that they reverse > which transport session is primary, and which is secondary. > There is no explanation of why both are present. And there is > no explanation of why the settings in index 7 are used, rather > than those in index 8. > > If you define an Observation Point with 0 for both Physical Entity > and Physical Interface, what is it observing? Similarly, what is a > metering process metering if its Observation Point Group Ref is 0? |
2012-03-13
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] s1: Not sure you need the MUST/MAY in the following because they're not telling me much: Most of the objects defined by the … [Ballot comment] s1: Not sure you need the MUST/MAY in the following because they're not telling me much: Most of the objects defined by the IPFIX MIB module MUST be implemented. Some objects MAY be implemented corresponding to the functionality implemented in the equipment. |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-03-12
|
02 | Thomas Dietz | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-02.txt |
2012-03-11
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] This document appears to Obsolete RFC 5815, but that is not indicated anywhere in the document, nor in the header. This appears … [Ballot comment] This document appears to Obsolete RFC 5815, but that is not indicated anywhere in the document, nor in the header. This appears to be simply errata fixes from 5815. Is there a reason it is recycling at Proposed rather than advancing to Internet Standard? |
2012-03-11
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-03-11
|
01 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-03-08
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Stephen Kent. |
2012-03-08
|
01 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre |
2012-03-08
|
01 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-03-07
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-03-01
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2012-03-01
|
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Amy Vezza | 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: … 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 IP Flow Information Export) 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 IP Flow Information Export' 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 2012-03-08. 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. Abstract This document defines managed objects for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX). These objects provide information for monitoring IPFIX Exporters and IPFIX Collectors including the basic configuration information. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-03-15 |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2012-02-23
|
01 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call text changed |
2012-02-23
|
01 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2012-02-23
|
01 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2012-02-23
|
01 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2012-02-21
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01 =========================================== (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, … Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01 =========================================== (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 was sufficiently reviewed during WG last call. Comments from reviews have been addressed by an update after WGLC. 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 updates a MIB module. Although applied changes are rather small, a MIB doctor review is recommendable. (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 one in the last paragraph of section 1: '"RECOMMENDED"' -> '"RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED"' This can be fixed by the next update 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]. References are arranged correctly. (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 defines actions for IANA in an appropriate way. (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? The document contains two MIB modules in section 8. Both have been validated. (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 defines managed objects for IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX). These objects provide information for monitoring IPFIX Exporters and IPFIX Collectors including the basic configuration information.. Working Group Summary This is a minor update of RFC 5815. Changes concern the registration method of IPFIX packet selector functions by IANA and the Integration of errata filed for RFC 5815. The update is included in the current WG charter. The update was discussed at several WG meetings and on the mailing list. Document Quality The document is a minor updates of RFC5815. The document underwent a WG last call in the IPFIX WG in order to maintain the quality that RFC 5815 already has. Personnel Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible area director. |
2012-02-21
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2012-02-21
|
01 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Juergen Quittek (Quittek@neclab.eu) is the document shepherd.' added |
2012-01-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01.txt |
2011-11-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00.txt |