Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities IANA Registry
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-12

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes and RFC 9710, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
As an aside, I find the choice (not yours, long-standing) to keep the references to RFC 5102 in place in the IPFIX registry to be weird verging on problematic; it is probably too much scope creep to fix it in this document though. :-(

[Ballot comment]
As an aside, I find the choice to keep the references to RFC 5102 in place in the IPFIX registry to be weird verging on problematic; it is probably too much scope creep to fix it in this document though. :-(

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to the authors for writing this document -- it looks like a necessary, but extremely un-fun to write doc.
Also thanks to Qin Wu for the helpful Ops-Dir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-03-opsdir-early-wu-2023-12-25/) and to Med for addressing the comments.

I'd like to add a further nit:
Introduction:
"When OPSAWG was considering ... " What is this OPSAWG of which you speak? (s/OPSAWG/Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG)/)

[Ballot comment]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Thomas Graf for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Abstract Section 1

Suggest using the full name of the IANA registry "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" (i.e., with "Entities" at the end).

## Section 1

Be more assertive in a PS: s/This document intends to update /This document updates /

## Section 4.3.2

Is it the "first" or "least-significant" byte in `A structure is currently associated with the first byte.`?

Can only regret using the IPv4 terminology in 2024 as in `Bad TTL` rather than "Bad Hop-Limit/TTL" (would also suggest using "expired" as I do not know what a "bad" hop-limit is). I understand that this would require changing https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#forwarding-status but why not doing it in the same "fix I-D" ?

I would assume that Forwarding-Status should be a normative reference.

## Section 6.10.2

RFC 3022 does not contain the word "NAT44" so it cannot be a reference for NAT44 ;-) You may want to use "See [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT (commonly named NAT44)" or similar.

BTW, thanks for fixing NAT66 into NPTv6 ;-)

## Sections 6.23.2 and 6.24.2

Suggest removing the reference to RFC 791 & 3234 as they are neither related to NAT nor used in the IANA registry.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 5

I am just puzzled by the order of the rows in table 1, it looks neither logical nor alphabetical.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10; we had also previously reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

All of the actions described below apply to the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

As these changes affect registrations in Expert Review registries, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Reviews via a separate request. We also understand that the changes in -10 from -08 are as a result of these Expert Reviews

First, IANA will update the description of the eleven, following individual IPFIX Information Elements as follows:

sourceTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.1 of the current draft;
destinationTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.2 of the current draft;
forwardingStatus - with the changes specified in section 4.3 of the current draft;
collectorTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.4 of the current draft;
exporterTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.5 of the current draft;
collectionTimeMilliseconds - with the changes specified in section 7.1 of the current draft;
messageMD5Checksum - with the changes specified in section 7.2 of the current draft;
anonymizationFlags - with the changes specified in section 7.3 of the current draft;
informationElementDescription - with the changes specified in section 7.4 of the current draft;
distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress - with the changes specified in section 7.5 of the current draft; and,
externalAddressRealm - with the changes specified in section 7.6 of the current draft.

Second, IANA will update the Additional Information field for eight individual IPFIX Information Elements including pointers to existing IANA registries as follows:

icmpTypeCodeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml
igmpType - https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers/igmp-type-numbers.xhtml#igmp-type-numbers-1
icmpTypeCodeIPv6 https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml
icmpTypeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-types
icmpCodeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-codes
icmpTypeIPv6 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-2
icmpCodeIPv6 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-3
privateEnterpriseNumber - https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-numbers

Third, IANA will make changes to the Descriptions and Additional Information fields for twenty-four individual IPFIX Information Elements as follows:

. mplsTopLabelType - with the changes specified in section 6.1 of the current draft;
. classificationEngineId - with the changes specified in section 6.2 of the current draft;
. flowEndReason - with the changes specified in section 6.3 of the current draft;
. natOriginatingAddressRealm - with the changes specified in section 6.4 of the current draft;
. natEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.5 of the current draft;
. firewallEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.6 of the current draft;
. biflowDirection - with the changes specified in section 6.7 of the current draft;
. observationPointType - with the changes specified in section 6.8 of the current draft;
. anonymizationTechnique - with the changes specified in section 6.9 of the current draft;
. natType - with the changes specified in section 6.10 of the current draft;
. selectorAlgorithm - with the changes specified in section 6.11 of the current draft;
. informationElementDataType - with the changes specified in section 6.12 of the current draft;
. informationElementSemantics - with the changes specified in section 6.13 of the current draft;
. informationElementUnits - with the changes specified in section 6.14 of the current draft;
. portRangeStart - with the changes specified in section 6.15 of the current draft;
. portRangeEnd - with the changes specified in section 6.16 of the current draft;
. ingressInterfaceType - with the changes specified in section 6.17 of the current draft;
. egressInterfaceType - with the changes specified in section 6.18 of the current draft;
. valueDistributionMethod - with the changes specified in section 6.19 of the current draft;
. flowSelectorAlgorithm - with the changes specified in section 6.20 of the current draft;
. dataLinkFrameType - with the changes specified in section 6.21 of the current draft;
. mibCaptureTimeSemantics - with the changes specified in section 6.22 of the current draft;
. natQuotaExceededEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.23 of the current draft;
. natThresholdEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.24 of the current draft;

Fourth, the reference for the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Fifth, wherever a reference exists to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry in the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and in the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

the language to describe the reference will be changed from this:

Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be found at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

to this:

See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP) port numbers at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Simple Fixes
to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-19. 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 provides simple fixes to the IANA IP Flow Information
  Export (IPFIX) registry.  Specifically, this document provides
  updates to fix shortcomings in the description of some Information
  Elements (IE), updates to ensure a consistent structure when citing
  an existing IANA registry, and updates to fix broken pointers,
  orphaned section references, etc.  The updates are also meant to
  bring some consistency among the entries of the registry.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/



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

The document references RFCs that are flagged as DownRef. They are on purpose, in most cases to provide context.

These include:

- RFC2482
- RFC5102
- RFC1631
- RFC7125
- RFC4646

* In the TOC, all the OLD / NEW section names are distracting. It would be much more readable if the TOC was limited to just two levels:
  1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
  2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
  3.  Why An RFC is Needed for These Updates? . . . . . . . . . . .  6
  4.  Update the Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    4.1.  sourceTransportPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    4.2.  destinationTransportPort  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
    4.3.  forwardingStatus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8


* In the Introduction, "some other parts" lacks context unless the reader is familiar with RFC9565, RFC7125, and the WG process that took place. So simply say, "some parts":
  When OPSAWG was considering [RFC9565] which updates [RFC7125], the WG
  realized that some other parts of the IANA IP Flow Information Export
  (IPFIX) registry ...



* Typo in 4.1.2. NEW :
      See the assigned tranport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and
      SCTP) port numbers at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-
      names-port-numbers.

Also, please retain the UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP ordering. Same for 4.2.2, 4.4.2, and 4.5.2.

See the assigned tranport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP) port numbers at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.


* 4.2.2. NEW

"destination" x2 :

Description: The destination port identifier in the transport protocol header. For transport protocols such as
UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP, this is the source port number given in the respective header. This field MAY also
be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit source port identifiers.


* 4.4.2. NEW

There's no mention of DCCP in the description, nor reference to [RFC4340], though DCCP is mentioned in the last paragraph of Additional Information.



* 4.5.2. NEW

Traffic is sent from a source port, not to it:

    The source port identifier to which the Exporting Process sends Flow information.


There's no mention of DCCP in the description, nor reference to [RFC4340], though DCCP is mentioned in the last paragraph of Additional Information.



* 6.3.2. NEW

No, it's the "flow end reason" registry:

    See the Classification Engine IDs registry available at [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-flow-end-reason].



* 6.4.2. New

"See the NAT originating address realm registry at ..."

Additional Information: See the assigned NAT originating address realm at


* 6.5.2. New

"See the NAT Event Type registry at"

Additional Information: See the assigned NAT Event Types at


* 6.6.2. NEW

"See the firewallEvent registry at"

Additional Information: See the assigned firewall events at

Same comment for many other sections. ie, where the text says, "Values are listed in the xyz registry.", the Additional Information should say, "See the xyz registry at ..."



* 6.11.2 NEW

Please append [RFC5102] here.

For the methods parameters, Information Elements are defined in the information model document [RFC5102].


* Typo in 6.12.2. NEW :
  Additional Information:  See the assigned emelement data types at
      [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
      information-element-data-types].


* 6.13.2. NEW

The ; should be a . as "The special value" is a new sentence:

    subregistry; the special value 0x00 (default) is used



(Stopped at 6.14 )

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

All of the actions described below apply to the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

As these changes affect registrations in Expert Review registries, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

First, IANA will update the description of the eleven, following individual IPFIX Information Elements as follows:

sourceTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.1 of the draft;
destinationTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.2 of the draft;
forwardingStatus - with the changes specified in section 4.3 of the draft;
collectorTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.4 of the draft;
exporterTransportPort - with the changes specified in section 4.5 of the draft;
collectionTimeMilliseconds - with the changes specified in section 7.1 of the current draft;
messageMD5Checksum - with the changes specified in section 7.2 of the current draft;
anonymizationFlags - with the changes specified in section 7.3 of the current draft;
informationElementDescription - with the changes specified in section 7.4 of the current draft;
distinctCountOfDestinationIPAddress - with the changes specified in section 7.5 of the current draft; and,
externalAddressRealm - with the changes specified in section 7.6 of the current draft.

Second, IANA will update the Additional Information field for eight individual IPFIX Information Elements including pointers to existing IANA registries as follows:

icmpTypeCodeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml
igmpType - https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers/igmp-type-numbers.xhtml#igmp-type-numbers-1
icmpTypeCodeIPv6 https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml
icmpTypeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-types
icmpCodeIPv4 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters/icmp-parameters.xhtml#icmp-parameters-codes
icmpTypeIPv6 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-2
icmpCodeIPv6 - https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-3
privateEnterpriseNumber - https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-numbers

Third, IANA will make changes to the Descriptions and Additional Information fields for twenty-four individual IPFIX Information Elements as follows:

. mplsTopLabelType - with the changes specified in section 6.1 of the current draft;
. classificationEngineId - with the changes specified in section 6.2 of the current draft;
. flowEndReason - with the changes specified in section 6.3 of the current draft;
. natOriginatingAddressRealm - with the changes specified in section 6.4 of the current draft;
. natEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.5 of the current draft;
. firewallEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.6 of the current draft;
. biflowDirection - with the changes specified in section 6.7 of the current draft;
. observationPointType - with the changes specified in section 6.8 of the current draft;
. anonymizationTechnique - with the changes specified in section 6.9 of the current draft;
. natType - with the changes specified in section 6.10 of the current draft;
. selectorAlgorithm - with the changes specified in section 6.11 of the current draft;
. informationElementDataType - with the changes specified in section 6.12 of the current draft;
. informationElementSemantics - with the changes specified in section 6.13 of the current draft;
. informationElementUnits - with the changes specified in section 6.14 of the current draft;
. portRangeStart - with the changes specified in section 6.15 of the current draft;
. portRangeEnd - with the changes specified in section 6.16 of the current draft;
. ingressInterfaceType - with the changes specified in section 6.17 of the current draft;
. egressInterfaceType - with the changes specified in section 6.18 of the current draft;
. valueDistributionMethod - with the changes specified in section 6.19 of the current draft;
. flowSelectorAlgorithm - with the changes specified in section 6.20 of the current draft;
. dataLinkFrameType - with the changes specified in section 6.21 of the current draft;
. mibCaptureTimeSemantics - with the changes specified in section 6.22 of the current draft;
. natQuotaExceededEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.23 of the current draft;
. natThresholdEvent - with the changes specified in section 6.24 of the current draft;

Fourth, the reference for the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Fifth, wherever a reference exists to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry in the IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry group and in the registries in that group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/

the language to describe the reference will be changed from this:

Additional information on defined UDP and TCP port numbers can be found at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

to this:

See the assigned transport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP) port numbers at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Simple Fixes
to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IANA Registry'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-10. 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 provides simple fixes to the IANA IP Flow Information
  Export (IPFIX) registry.  Specifically, this document provides
  updates to fix a shortcoming in the description of some Information
  Elements (IE), updates to ensure a consistent structure when calling
  an existing IANA registry, and updates to fix broken pointers,
  orphaned section references, etc.  The updates are also meant to
  bring some consistency among the entries of the registry.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/



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

# 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?

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?

Proposed Standard is being requested for new IPFIX entities according to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-13, while waiting for more implementations and operational experience.

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/

# 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?

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/

# 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?

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/

# 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/