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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

(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

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.

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.