Skip to main content

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

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities IANA Registry' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-12.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities IANA
   Registry'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-12.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

There was broad consensus on the document.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no known implementations of the document. However, most of the document is about changes that have been made to the IPFIX registry, which had gaps, errors, or needed clarifications.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Thomas Graf. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

This document forms a cluster with two other documents, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-16 and draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-12.

RFC Editor Note