Skip to main content

Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-02-06
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-06.txt
2024-02-06
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-02-06
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2024-02-06
06 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-02-03
05 Thomas Graf
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 3 February 2024.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 3 February 2024.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

No objections have been received by the working group. The working group values
that the consistency among the registered IPFIX entities at IANA is restored and
some descriptions and references, which changed over time, are corrected.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Consesus was achieved without any opposing voice.

3. 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 publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The document doesn't introduce any new IPFIX entities. It updates them.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Yes, the document received.

General Area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/7-TAbCcEJxTjTwETJ4RjQCpYGbg/

Operations area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/M132EtBBC5s4ekLkSOui7nBZKO0/

and IPFIX doctor
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/x81KVO48QRcrv2TPmkW8k5NlNTo/

early reviews. Most of the points have already being addressed by the authors,
some of the them are still to be resolved

IPFIX doctor
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/2WjJgTqWijRyU0fZJK0pGxbOhU8/

General Area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/8UBwngmCj3tEoB55WhxwgrAFHps/

Operations area
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/wPeGX3vgW8nxzF10fE7Acm8QHQw/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

IPFIX doctor
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/x81KVO48QRcrv2TPmkW8k5NlNTo/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A (other than IDNITS)

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Once the open points from the IPFIX doctor and the Operation area early review
have been addressed, consensus on the working group mailing list regarding
the deprecation vs. updating IE ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions has been
achieved, I believe the document is ready to be handed off.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

General, Operations area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I suggest that Transport
and Internet are also reviewing the document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard is being requested for new IPFIX entities according to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-13

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

A poll was sent to the list. The named authors has replied that there is no IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh is being prepared to be submitted to IESG.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IPFIX entities updated by this document are consistent with the body of the
document. The IANA registries have been clearly identified and the newly
created IPFIX subregistry for IPv6 extension headers has defined initial values
in Section 9.1 of the document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-05#section-9.1

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-05#section-9.1
The instructions are clear and the designated experts are defined in the
linked registry.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-1


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-01-23
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-05.txt
2024-01-23
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-01-23
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2024-01-23
05 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-01-15
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-04.txt
2024-01-15
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-01-15
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2024-01-15
04 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-01-09
03 Joe Clarke Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-01-08
03 Behcet Sarikaya Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya. Sent review to list.
2024-01-04
03 Joe Clarke Notification list changed to thomas.graf@swisscom.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-01-04
03 Joe Clarke Document shepherd changed to Thomas Graf
2023-12-25
03 Qin Wu Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list.
2023-12-22
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Behcet Sarikaya
2023-12-21
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu
2023-12-18
03 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-12-18
03 Joe Clarke Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-12-18
03 Joe Clarke Requested Early review by GENART
2023-10-17
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-03.txt
2023-10-17
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-10-17
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2023-10-17
03 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-09-20
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-02.txt
2023-09-20
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-09-20
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2023-09-20
02 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-06-21
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-01.txt
2023-06-21
01 (System) New version approved
2023-06-21
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair
2023-06-21
01 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-06-21
00 Tianran Zhou This document now replaces draft-boucla-opsawg-ipfix-fixes instead of None
2023-06-21
00 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-00.txt
2023-06-21
00 Tianran Zhou WG -00 approved
2023-06-21
00 Mohamed Boucadair Set submitter to "Mohamed Boucadair ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
2023-06-21
00 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision