Skip to main content

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