Skip to main content

Information Model for Large-Scale Measurement Platforms (LMAPs)
draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-18

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-08-17
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-06-13
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-06-02
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-05-02
18 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-05-02
18 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-05-02
18 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-05-01
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2017-04-30
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-04-30
18 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-04-30
18 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-04-30
18 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2017-04-30
18 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-04-21
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-04-21
18 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-18.txt
2017-04-21
18 (System) New version approved
2017-04-21
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philip Eardley , Trevor Burbridge , lmap-chairs@ietf.org, Marcelo Bagnulo , =?utf-8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?=
2017-04-21
18 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2017-04-21
17 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-03-16
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-03-16
17 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

I suspect Leif and Russ are right that credential handling
needs a bit more work. (IOW, I agree with Jari's comment.)
2017-03-16
17 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2017-03-16
17 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I only skimmed the document.

ma-log-description:      A human readable description of the event.

As per Section 4 of BCP 18 , …
[Ballot comment]
I only skimmed the document.

ma-log-description:      A human readable description of the event.

As per Section 4 of BCP 18 , human readable text should be associated with language tags. You should consider adding this functionality to the information model.
2017-03-16
17 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-03-16
17 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-03-16
17 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2017-03-15
17 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-03-15
17 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Russ's comment/question about the credentials is a good one. It is fine to have different arrangements for different situations, but Russ’s question was …
[Ballot comment]
Russ's comment/question about the credentials is a good one. It is fine to have different arrangements for different situations, but Russ’s question was really not about that but whether the CA information mentioned earlier is a part of a specific part of the information model (ma-credentials). I think that deserves clarification.
2017-03-15
17 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2017-03-15
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Leif Johansson.
2017-03-15
17 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-03-15
17 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-03-15
17 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-03-14
17 Ben Campbell [Ballot comment]
I concur with Russ's comment in his GenArt review that the credentials/certificates described in section 3.1 warrant discussion in the security considerations section.
2017-03-14
17 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-03-14
17 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
In the security considerations section, I see the following text:

  These mechanisms are important to ensure that the MA
  cannot be …
[Ballot comment]
In the security considerations section, I see the following text:

  These mechanisms are important to ensure that the MA
  cannot be hijacked, for example to participate in a distributed
  denial of service attack.

Wouldn't using the systems or the collected data for network recon (or other attacks) be a more important consideration to be listed than DDoS?
2017-03-14
17 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-03-10
17 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see …
[Ballot comment]
Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see ma-report-result-tags) ? And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?
- Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!
- Sec 3.7.: "There is no mechanism to prioritise one schedule over another or to mutex scheduled tasks."
  Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important to have!
- Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?
- The regristry concept is rather unclear to me as it suddently shows up in section 3.10. Especially what's a role in this context (ma-registry-role)? Example?
2017-03-10
17 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-03-10
17 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see …
[Ballot comment]
Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see ma-report-result-tags) ? And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?
- Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!
- Sec 3.7.: "There is no mechanism to prioritise one schedule over another or to mutex scheduled tasks."
  Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important to have!
- Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?
- The regristry concept is rather unclear to me as it suddently shows up in section 3.10. Especially what's a role in this context (ma-registry-role)? Example?
2017-03-10
17 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-03-09
17 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-03-09
17 Alissa Cooper Ballot has been issued
2017-03-09
17 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-03-09
17 Alissa Cooper Created "Approve" ballot
2017-03-09
17 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2017-03-08
17 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-03-01
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-03-01
17 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-02-27
17 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2017-02-27
17 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2017-02-26
17 Russ Housley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list.
2017-02-23
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2017-02-23
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2017-02-23
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Leif Johansson
2017-02-23
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Leif Johansson
2017-02-22
17 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-02-22
17 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: lmap-chairs@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu , lmap@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-lmap-information-model@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: lmap-chairs@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu , lmap@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-lmap-information-model@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Information Model for Large-Scale Measurement Platforms (LMAP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Large-Scale Measurement of
Broadband Performance WG (lmap) to consider the following document:
- 'Information Model for Large-Scale Measurement Platforms (LMAP)'
  as 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 2017-03-08. 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 Information Model applies to the Measurement Agent within a
  Large-Scale Measurement Platform.  As such it outlines the
  information that is (pre-)configured on the Measurement Agent or
  exists in communications with a Controller or Collector within an
  LMAP framework.  The purpose of such an Information Model is to
  provide a protocol and device independent view of the Measurement
  Agent that can be implemented via one or more Control and Report
  protocols.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-information-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-information-model/ballot/


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




2017-02-22
17 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-02-22
17 Alissa Cooper Last call was requested
2017-02-22
17 Alissa Cooper Ballot approval text was generated
2017-02-22
17 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was generated
2017-02-22
17 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-02-22
17 Alissa Cooper Last call announcement was generated
2017-02-22
17 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17.txt
2017-02-22
17 (System) New version approved
2017-02-22
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philip Eardley , Trevor Burbridge , lmap-chairs@ietf.org, Marcelo Bagnulo , =?utf-8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?=
2017-02-22
17 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2017-02-22
16 Alissa Cooper Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-03-16
2017-01-20
16 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-01-13
16 Dan Romascanu
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) 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 Information Model applies to the Measurement Agent within a
  Large-Scale Measurement Platform.  As such it outlines the
  information that is (pre-)configured on the Measurement Agent or
  exists in communications with a Controller or Collector within an
  LMAP framework.  The purpose of such an Information Model is to
  provide a protocol and device independent view of the Measurement
  Agent that can be implemented via one or more Control and Report
  protocols.

Working Group Summary

  The Working Group debated the need for an Information Model and how it should be written.  The consensus was that an IM is needed and the current format was adopted. 

Document Quality

    There is one active implementation of a DM based on this IM which was presented, discussed and is available openly. There is information about at least one more implementation in progress. During the development of the document the WG communicated and received inputs from other SDOs (as the Broadband Forum and IEEE 802) as well as from the EC projects.

Personnel

  Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I reviewed this document and I believe that it is ready for submission

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) 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 was a consistent participation, many detailed discussions, and good consensus on the resulting work.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are a number of warnings that can be easily fixed by edits in the final editing phases.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No need.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document makes no request of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document makes no request of IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No need.
2017-01-13
16 Dan Romascanu IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2017-01-13
16 Dan Romascanu IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-01-13
16 Dan Romascanu IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-01-13
16 Dan Romascanu Changed document writeup
2017-01-13
16 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16.txt
2017-01-13
16 (System) New version approved
2017-01-13
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marcelo Bagnulo" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Trevor Burbridge" , "Philip Eardley"
2017-01-13
16 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2017-01-13
15 Dan Romascanu Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-01-13
15 Dan Romascanu Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-01-13
15 Dan Romascanu Notification list changed to "Dan Romascanu" <dromasca@gmail.com>
2017-01-13
15 Dan Romascanu Document shepherd changed to Dan Romascanu
2017-01-11
15 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-15.txt
2017-01-11
15 (System) New version approved
2017-01-11
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marcelo Bagnulo" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Trevor Burbridge" , "Philip Eardley"
2017-01-11
15 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2016-12-15
14 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-14.txt
2016-12-15
14 (System) New version approved
2016-12-15
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marcelo Bagnulo" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Trevor Burbridge" , "Philip Eardley"
2016-12-15
14 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2016-11-17
13 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-13.txt
2016-11-17
13 (System) New version approved
2016-11-17
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marcelo Bagnulo" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Trevor Burbridge" , "Philip Eardley"
2016-11-17
13 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2016-10-31
12 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-12.txt
2016-10-31
12 (System) New version approved
2016-10-31
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Marcelo Bagnulo" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" , "Trevor Burbridge" , "Philip Eardley"
2016-10-31
11 Jürgen Schönwälder Uploaded new revision
2016-08-19
11 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-11.txt
2016-07-08
10 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-10.txt
2016-04-04
09 Dan Romascanu Added to session: IETF-95: lmap  Tue-1400
2016-03-21
09 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-09.txt
2016-03-15
08 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-08.txt
2015-11-01
07 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-07.txt
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from lmap-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-07-03
06 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-06.txt
2015-04-10
05 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-05.txt
2015-03-05
04 Trevor Burbridge New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-04.txt
2015-01-27
03 Benoît Claise Shepherding AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2015-01-08
03 Trevor Burbridge New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-03.txt
2014-12-15
02 Benoît Claise Notification list changed to draft-ietf-lmap-information-model.all@tools.ietf.org, lmap-chairs@tools.ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
2014-08-20
02 Trevor Burbridge New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-02.txt
2014-06-27
01 Trevor Burbridge New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-01.txt
2014-02-24
00 Benoît Claise This document now replaces draft-burbridge-lmap-information-model instead of None
2014-02-24
00 Benoît Claise Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise
2014-02-16
00 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-00.txt