Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-02-17
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2024-10-15
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2024-10-14
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2024-10-14
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2024-10-10
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-10-10
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2024-10-07
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-10-03
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2024-09-24
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2024-09-19
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-09-19
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-09-19
|
18 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-09-19
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-09-19
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-09-19
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2024-09-19
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-09-19
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-09-19
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-08-26
|
18 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-26
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-08-16
|
18 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my concerns. I have updated my ballot to No Objection. |
2024-08-16
|
18 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Paul Wouters has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-08-12
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-07-22
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Mahesh Jethanandani (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-22
|
18 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-07-22
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-07-22
|
18 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18.txt |
2024-07-22
|
18 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-07-22
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-07-22
|
18 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-11
|
17 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benoît Claise, Mohamed Boucadair (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-11
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2024-07-11
|
17 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review. I think this specification is OK to publish from … [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review. I think this specification is OK to publish from tranpsport protocol perspective. However, this specification deprecates tcpOptions IE without updating (or obsolating) RFC 5102, so I am unsure about the operational issues and usage of the new IEs when we have tcpOption IE. Hence supporting Paul's discuss. One question - - Section 4.1: it says "This approach allows an observer to export any observed TCP option even if it does support that option and without requiring updating a mapping table" Do you mean "even if it does *not* support that option"? |
2024-07-11
|
17 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | Ballot comment text updated for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-07-11
|
17 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review. I think this specification is OK to publish from … [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review. I think this specification is OK to publish from tranpsport protocol perspective. One question - - Section 4.1: it says "This approach allows an observer to export any observed TCP option even if it does support that option and without requiring updating a mapping table" Do you mean "even if it does *not* support that option"? |
2024-07-11
|
17 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-07-10
|
17 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot discuss] This specification deprecates the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE in favor of the new IEs defined in … [Ballot discuss] This specification deprecates the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE in favor of the new IEs defined in this document. I don't see which RFC those were in, because this document does not Update: or Obsolete: the RFC that defined the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE This specification deprecates the tcpOptions IE Same here. |
2024-07-10
|
17 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-07-10
|
17 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-07-09
|
17 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have one suggestion -- even though the update to the IANA registry is sufficient to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have one suggestion -- even though the update to the IANA registry is sufficient to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions, it seems to me it would be a courtesy to future users of RFC 5102 if you also used the Updates: header to indicate that 5102 is updated to deprecate these elements, instead of requiring them to discover this (perhaps late in their journey) by examining the registry. (Now that I look at this a little harder, I see that although the registry points to 5102, that RFC is obsoleted by 7012, so the chain of pointers is already messy. It would still be nice to use Updates: but presumably pointing to 7012... and I wonder if the registry should be updated to reference 5102 throughout, the note at the top of it notwithstanding. But that is a problem for another day.) |
2024-07-09
|
17 | John Scudder | Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder |
2024-07-09
|
17 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2024-07-09
|
17 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have one suggestion -- even though the update to the IANA registry is sufficient to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. I have one suggestion -- even though the update to the IANA registry is sufficient to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions, it seems to me it would be a courtesy to future users of RFC 5102 if you also used the Updates: header to indicate that 5102 is updated to deprecate these elements, instead of requiring them to discover this (perhaps late in their journey) by examining the registry. |
2024-07-09
|
17 | John Scudder | Ballot comment text updated for John Scudder |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] ** Section 8.2. This section is under-specified and contains typos relevant to registration. -- The "IPFIX Information Elements" registry doesn’t have a “Value” … [Ballot discuss] ** Section 8.2. This section is under-specified and contains typos relevant to registration. -- The "IPFIX Information Elements" registry doesn’t have a “Value” field. It is “ElementID” -- The mandatory elements of the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry defined in the registration template of Section 2.1 of RFC7012 are missing – description, datatype, and status. I appreciate that the first two in this list are found in their respective sections. However, there is no guidance to IANA to extract those values as such. -- Per the Reference field value, is a section number permitted? No other current entry in this registry includes a section number. The definition of references from RFC7012 doesn’t seem to account for it either -- “reference - Identifies additional specifications that more precisely define this item or provide additional context for its use.” |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Joel M. Halpern for the GENART review. |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Tero Kivinen for multiple secdir reviews. |
2024-07-09
|
17 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2024-07-08
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-07-05
|
17 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### S3.6 * "reported that IPv6 packets with extension headers are often dropped" A useful citation here might be RFC 7872, "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World". ## Nits ### S3.4 * "the occurrences of the Fragment headers" -> "the occurrence of the Fragment header" to match the example scenario's description. |
2024-07-05
|
17 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-07-05
|
17 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-07-05
|
17 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17.txt |
2024-07-05
|
17 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-07-05
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-07-05
|
17 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-02
|
16 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-16 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking some … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-16 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. 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) ## Section 3 Suggest using the IE acronym rather than "Information Element" in the subsections of this section. ## Section 3.1 s/Type of an IPv6 extension header observed *in packets* of this Flow./Type of an IPv6 extension header observed *in at least one packet* of this Flow./ ? (or "in some packets") ## Section 3.2 I was wondering about this IE and the previous one as they looked quite atomic (plus the use of "consecutive") until I read the specification of ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList. Suggest adding a forward reference to section 3.4 and add some text that those 2 IEs can only occur in ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList. E.g., "This atomic IE MAY only occur in ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList as specified in section 3.4". ## Section 3.3 It took me to read until section 8.4.1 to understand the the bit number is *NOT* the extension header type per RFC 8200. It is really confusing with `The "No Next Header" (59) value` text, which I also read as bit 59. Strongly suggest adding a note on the value referring to NEW_IPFIX_IPv6EH_SUBREGISTRY not only in "Additional Information" but in "Description" (as it is really normative). ## Section 3.4 `How an implementation disambiguates between unknown upper-layer protocols vs. extension headers is not IPFIX-specific` is true but why not specifying the expected behavior of the collector at least? Citing RFC 8883 as an example, does not really help in a PS. Alternatively, the IANA NEW_IPFIX_IPv6EH_SUBREGISTRY could redefine UNK as "unknown extension or transport header". ## Sections 3.5 & 3.6 Excellent idea :-) Thanks ## Missing RH Type ? It would be really to be able to also export the Routing Header type, perhaps in an optional new IE following ipv6ExtensionHeaderType in the list or by adding more values in NEW_IPFIX_IPv6EH_SUBREGISTRY (cfr also section 8.4.2 `For example, a registration may request two bits for a new EH to cover specific behaviors or uses of that EH.`)? ## Section 4.1 `The value of tcpOptionsFull IE may be encoded in fewer octets` should it rather be a "SHOULD" (with explanations about the consequences of bypassing the SHOULD) ? s/The presence of tcpSharedOptionExID16List or tcpSharedOptionExID32List IEs is an indication that a shared TCP option (Kind=253 or 254) is observed in a Flow./The presence of tcpSharedOptionExID16List (Kind=253) or tcpSharedOptionExID32List (Kind=254) IEs is an indication that a shared TCP option is observed in a Flow./ ? ## Sections 4.2 and 4.3 Same comment as in sections 3.2 and 3.3. ## Section 5 Should it be an "Implementation Consideration" ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 3.4 Should plural form be used for "header" in the example ? |
2024-07-02
|
16 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-06-25
|
16 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Jenny Bui | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-07-11 |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot has been issued |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-06-24
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-16.txt |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-06-24
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-06-24
|
16 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-06-19
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-06-18
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-06-18
|
15 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-15; we had also previously reviewed -11. If any part of this review … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-15; we had also previously reviewed -11. 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. First, in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ the entry for ipv6ExtensionHeaders IE (ElementID: 64) will be marked as deprecated and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the "Additional Information" field for this deprecated entry will show that it is deprecated in favor of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE as defined in this draft. As this document requests changes in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. We also understand that the changes in -15 are as a result of feedback from the experts. Second, also in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ the entry for tcpOptions IE (ElementID: 209) will be marked as deprecated and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the "Additional Information" field for this deprecated entry will show that it is deprecated in favor of tcpOptionsFull IE as defined in this draft. As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. We also understand that the changes in -15 are as a result of feedback from the experts. Third, also in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ twelve new registrations will be made as follows: Value Name Reference -----+-----+----------- [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeader [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeaderCount [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersLimit [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.6 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.7 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpOptionsFull [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID16 [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.2 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID32 [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.3 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID16List [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.4 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID32List [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.5 ] As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. We also understand that the changes in -15 are as a result of feedback from the experts. Fourth, in the IPFIX Information Element Data Types registry also in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ s single new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: unsigned256 Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the ipv6ExtensionHeaders Bits registry. The new registry will be located in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ The registry procedure for the new registry is Expert Review as defined in RFC8126. There are initial values for the new registry as follows: Protocol Bit Label Number Description Reference --+-----+--------+----------+----------- 0 DST 60 Destination Options for IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ] 1 HOP 0 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options [ RFC-to-be ] 2 NoNxt 59 No Next Header for IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ] 3 UNK Unknown extension header [ RFC-to-be ] 4 FRA0 44 Fragment header - first fragment [ RFC-to-be ] 5 RH 43 Routing header [ RFC-to-be ] 6 FRA1 44 Fragmentation header - not first fragment [ RFC-to-be ] 7 MOB 135 Mobility Header [ RFC-to-be ] 8 ESP 50 Encapsulating Security Payload [ RFC-to-be ] 9 AH 51 Authentication Header [ RFC-to-be ] 10 HIP 139 Host Identity Protocol [ RFC-to-be ] 11 SHIM6 140 Shim6 Protocol [ RFC-to-be ] 12 253 Use for experimentation and testing [ RFC-to-be ] 13 254 Use for experimentation and testing [ RFC-to-be ] 20 to 255 Unassigned 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 |
2024-06-13
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. Sent review to list. |
2024-06-06
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2024-06-05
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@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: (Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements' 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 specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements (IEs) to solve issues with existing ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IPFIX IEs, especially the ability to export any observed IPv6 extension headers or TCP options. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-06-05
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-06-05
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-06-05
|
15 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Last call was requested |
2024-06-05
|
15 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-05-23
|
15 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Issues identified |
2024-05-23
|
15 | David Dong | The IPFIX Information Elements registrations have been approved. |
2024-05-22
|
15 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-15.txt |
2024-05-22
|
15 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-05-22
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-05-22
|
15 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-21
|
14 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-14.txt |
2024-05-21
|
14 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-05-21
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-05-21
|
14 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-17
|
13 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-13.txt |
2024-05-17
|
13 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-05-17
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-05-17
|
13 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-13
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2024-05-13
|
12 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-12.txt |
2024-05-13
|
12 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-05-13
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-05-13
|
12 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-10
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-05-09
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-05-09
|
11 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11. 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. First, in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ the entry for ipv6ExtensionHeaders IE (ElementID: 64) will be marked as deprecated and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the "Additional Information" field for this deprecated entry will show that it is deprecated in favor of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE as defined in this draft. As this document requests changes in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, 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." Second, also in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ the entry for tcpOptions IE (ElementID: 209) will be marked as deprecated and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the "Additional Information" field for this deprecated entry will show that it is deprecated in favor of tcpOptionsFull IE as defined in this draft. As this also requests changes in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, 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." Third, also in the IPFIX Information Elements registry in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ nine new registrations will be made as follows: Value Name Reference -----------------------+--------------------------------+------------------------- [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeader [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeaderCount [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.3 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.4 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersLimit [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.5 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.6 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpOptionsFull [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.1 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID16 [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.2 ] [ TBD-at-Registration ] tcpSharedOptionExID32 [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.3 ] As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, 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." Fourth, in the IPFIX Information Element Data Types registry also in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ s single new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: unsigned256 Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the ipv6ExtensionHeaders Bits registry. The new registry will be located in the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ The registry procedure for the new registry is Expert Review as defined in RFC8126. There are initial values for the new registry as follows: Bit Label Protocol Number Description Reference --+-----+----------------+-----------+----------- 0 DST 60 Destination Options for IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ] 1 HOP 0 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options [ RFC-to-be ] 2 NoNxt 59 No Next Header for IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ] 3 UNK Unknown Layer 4 header (compressed, encrypted, not supported) [ RFC-to-be ] 4 FRA0 44 Fragment header - first fragment [ RFC-to-be ] 5 RH 43 Routing header [ RFC-to-be ] 6 FRA1 44 Fragmentation header - not first fragment [ RFC-to-be ] 7 to 11 Unassigned 12 MOB 135 Mobility Header [ RFC-to-be ] 13 ESP 50 Encapsulating Security Payload [ RFC-to-be ] 14 AH 51 Authentication Header [ RFC-to-be ] 15 Unassigned 16 HIP 139 Host Identity Protocol [ RFC-to-be ] 17 SHIM6 140 Shim6 Protocol [ RFC-to-be ] 18 253 Use for experimentation and testing [ RFC-to-be ] 19 254 Use for experimentation and testing [ RFC-to-be ] 20 to 255 Unassigned 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 |
2024-05-09
|
11 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Issues identified from Reviews assigned |
2024-05-09
|
11 | David Dong | * 1.1 Add "the": Section 3 addresses these issues. Also, the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE is deprecated in favor of the new IEs defined … * 1.1 Add "the": Section 3 addresses these issues. Also, the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE is deprecated in favor of the new IEs defined in this document. * 1.2 Add "the" : The specification of the tcpOptions IPFIX IE (209) does not: Should "option" be "options"? : * Describe how some observed TCP options in a Flow can be exported using IPFIX. Only TCP options having a Kind <= 63 can be exported in a tcpOptions IE. Add "the" : Section 4 addresses these issues. Also, the tcpOptions IE is deprecated in favor of the new IEs defined in this document. * 2 Is the indentation correct here? : Extension header chain: Refers to the chain of extension headers that are present in an IPv6 packet. This term should not be confused with the IPv6 header chain, which includes the IPv6 header, zero or more IPv6 extension headers, and zero or a single Upper-Layer Header. * 3.2 "the same" : Description: The number of consecutive occurrences of the same extension header type in a Flow. * 3.4 Add "ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList" : If several extension header chains are observed in a Flow, each header chain MUST be exported in a separate ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE. * 3.5 What if both ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull and ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList are exported? [Later] this is discussed in section 5.1, but that wouldn't be known from reading the IPFIX registry alone. The fact that these IEs are mutually exclusive should be added to both IE descriptions. Description: When set to "false", this Information Element indicates that the exported extension headers information (e.g., ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull or ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList) does not match the full enclosed extension headers * 3.6 Change "identifying" to "to identify" : Exporting such information might help to identify root causes of performance degradation, including packet drops. How would we know which ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE corresponds with which header chain? If several extension header chains are observed in a Flow, each header chain length MUST be exported in a separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE. * 5.1 "Will" sounds like a detail of a particular implementation. More generally this should be a "MUST", a "SHOULD", or a "MAY": If an implementation determines that an observed packet of a Flow includes an extension header that it does not support, then the exact observed code of that extension header will be echoed in the ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE (Section 3.4). * 5.2 What does this mean? : If a TCP Flow contains packets with a mix of 2-byte and 4-byte Experiment IDs, the same Template Record is used with both tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 IEs. * 6.1 It would be helpful to list the corresponding header bit values, and to list them in order (0, 1, 5) rather than 1, 5, 0: Figure 1 provides an example of reported values in an ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE for an IPv6 Flow in which only the IPv6 Destination Options header (0) is observed. Figure 2 provides another example of reported values in an ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE for an IPv6 Flow in which the IPv6 Hop- by-Hop Options (1), Routing (5), and Destination Options (0) headers are observed. * 6.2 It would be helpful to list the corresponding header bit values: Figure 3 shows an example of reported values in a tcpOptionsFull IE for a TCP Flow in which End of Option List (0), Maximum Segment Size (2), and Window Scale (3) options are observed. Please use the full 16-bit value, "0348" : 1. The tcpSharedOptionExID16 IE set to 0x0348454E to report observed 2-byte ExIDs: HOST_ID and TCP-ENO ExIDs. * 8.1 It's unclear which IE "this IE" is. eg, write "IE 209" if that's what's meant. * Update the tcpOptions IE (209) entry by marking it as deprecated in favor of the tcpOptionsFull IE defined in this document. This note should also be echoed in the "Additional Information" of this IE. * 8.4 This section sets up a potential conflict: what would happen if a new code was assigned to an IPv6 EH in [IANA-EH], but the expert reviewers disagreed with adding it to IPFIX? Section 1.1 said, "how to automatically update the IANA IPFIX registry". Is expert review contrary to an automatic update? * 8.4.1. Typo in Initial Values : | 1 | HOP | 0 | Pv6 Hop-by-Hop Options | This-Document | |
2024-05-09
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. Sent review to list. |
2024-05-03
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2024-05-02
|
11 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier … Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-05-02
|
11 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. |
2024-05-02
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Liz Flynn | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Liz Flynn | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-10): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-10): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@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: (Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements' 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 specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements (IEs) to solve issues with existing ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IPFIX IEs, especially the ability to export any observed IPv6 extension headers or TCP options. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Liz Flynn | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Last call was requested |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-04-26
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2024-04-25
|
11 | Dirk Von Hugo | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dirk Von Hugo. Sent review to list. |
2024-04-20
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-04-20
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. |
2024-04-19
|
11 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Previous review of -05 (diff) : Has Nits by Yingzhen … Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Previous review of -05 (diff) : Has Nits by Yingzhen Qu |
2024-04-15
|
11 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11.txt |
2024-04-15
|
11 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-04-15
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-04-15
|
11 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-14
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | The AD review can be found here - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/HU16Zp_yv2yoSq7Lvten8EQ65CY/ |
2024-04-14
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-04-09
|
10 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Dirk Von Hugo |
2024-04-09
|
10 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Requested Last Call review by TSVART |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 February 2024.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. OPSAWG reached consensus to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions as described in section 8.1 and in introduce new IPFIX entities. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. IPFIX entity 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely. Where IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/, merly used to its ambiguity and deprecated as described in section 8.1 of this document. It is expected that the new IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The feedbackis currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/YbOuevvacJ0hwKRjPGaSaMVXRgk/, has been achieved. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) None found 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-04-08
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Mahesh Jethanandani (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Responsible AD changed to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 February 2024.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. OPSAWG reached consensus to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions as described in section 8.1 and in introduce new IPFIX entities. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. IPFIX entity 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely. Where IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/, merly used to its ambiguity and deprecated as described in section 8.1 of this document. It is expected that the new IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The feedbackis currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/YbOuevvacJ0hwKRjPGaSaMVXRgk/, has been achieved. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) None found 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Internet Standard |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from Proposed Standard |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-04-08
|
10 | Joe Clarke | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2024-04-06
|
10 | Thomas Graf | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 February 2024.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. OPSAWG reached consensus to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions as described in section 8.1 and in introduce new IPFIX entities. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. IPFIX entity 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely. Where IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/, merly used to its ambiguity and deprecated as described in section 8.1 of this document. It is expected that the new IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The feedbackis currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/YbOuevvacJ0hwKRjPGaSaMVXRgk/, has been achieved. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) None found 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-02-10
|
10 | Thomas Graf | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 February 2024.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 10 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. OPSAWG reached consensus to deprecate ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions as described in section 8.1 and in introduce new IPFIX entities. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. IPFIX entity 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely. Where IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/, merly used to its ambiguity and deprecated as described in section 8.1 of this document. It is expected that the new IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The feedbackis currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/wqP_V-UAn7-o0SQ4bbUCyeHeHCA/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Sg1ZbGbvb2lLeh-XM6sjcL_DTOw/, is pending wherever this is the best choice. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) None found 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-02-06
|
10 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-10.txt |
2024-02-06
|
10 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-02-06
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-02-06
|
10 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-27
|
09 | Thomas Graf | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. Some of the fixes could be applied to the current IPFIX entities with draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes, other issues required new IPFIX entities which this document addresses. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. IPFIX entity 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely. Where IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions appears to be, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gaJ9-A6i3Z4grgHT86OUym_DAqA/, merly used to its ambiguity and suggested to deprecate. It is expected that the IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The feedbackis currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/wqP_V-UAn7-o0SQ4bbUCyeHeHCA/, is pending wherever this is the best choice. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) None found 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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
|
09 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt |
2024-01-23
|
09 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-01-23
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-01-23
|
09 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-21
|
08 | Thomas Graf | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* 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? Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders. Some of the fixes could be applied to the current IPFIX entities with draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes, other issues required new IPFIX entities which this document addresses. Section 8.2 introduces a new IPFIX data type since existing unsigned integers were to small. 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)? This document defines new IPFIX entities for IPv6 extension headers and TCP options and a new IPFIX data type. The working group is not aware of any existing or planned implementations. However IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders has been adopted widely, therefore it is expected that the IPFIX entities defined in this document are going to be implemented. ## 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 Transport area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-tsvart-early-eddy-2024-01-02/ OPS area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-opsdir-early-qu-2024-01-04/ Internet area https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05-intdir-early-von-hugo-2024-01-13/ and IPFIX doctor https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ reviews. The Transport, OPS and Internet area feedback are currently being addressed by the author. The Transport Area directorate and the IPFIX doctors challenges the correctness of the tcpOptionsFull data type. Wherever this should be a new data type unsigned256 or a bitfield type instead of unsigned according to reduced size encoding defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2. The authors therefore introduced a new unsigned256 data type in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08#name-new-ipfix-information-element and a consensus is pending wherever this is the best choice. 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 review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/9UnFDQUdswZSKntevzSVGqZDcMw/ Appart of the data type choice for tcpOptionsFull, tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 there are other remarks about justifications why new IPFIX entities have been introduced. 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 by the IPFIX doctor and the data type choices have been resolved, yes it is. I have reviewed the document and had minor comments. 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? Transport, OPS, Internet area and IPFIX doctors have reviewed. I do not believe detailed subsequent reviews are required. 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.) Some minor found and sent to the authors to be adressed. 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? No 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 created by this document are consistent with the body of the document. IPFIX entities are added to the existing registry as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-7.4. 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. N/A [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/ |
2024-01-17
|
08 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08.txt |
2024-01-17
|
08 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-01-17
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-01-17
|
08 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-15
|
07 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-07.txt |
2024-01-15
|
07 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-01-15
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-01-15
|
07 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-15
|
06 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-06.txt |
2024-01-15
|
06 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2024-01-15
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2024-01-15
|
06 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-13
|
05 | Dirk Von Hugo | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dirk Von Hugo. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-09
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2024-01-08
|
05 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Dirk Von Hugo |
2024-01-04
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-04
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Notification list changed to thomas.graf@swisscom.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-01-04
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Graf |
2024-01-02
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-21
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2023-12-19
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
2023-12-18
|
05 | Joe Clarke | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-12-18
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2023-12-18
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2023-12-18
|
05 | Joe Clarke | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
2023-10-23
|
05 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05.txt |
2023-10-23
|
05 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2023-10-23
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2023-10-23
|
05 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-19
|
04 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-04.txt |
2023-10-19
|
04 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2023-10-19
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2023-10-19
|
04 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-17
|
03 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-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 |
2023-10-17
|
02 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-02.txt |
2023-10-17
|
02 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2023-10-17
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2023-10-17
|
02 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-19
|
01 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-01.txt |
2023-09-19
|
01 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version approved |
2023-09-19
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Benoit Claise , Mohamed Boucadair |
2023-09-19
|
01 | Mohamed Boucadair | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-21
|
00 | Tianran Zhou | This document now replaces draft-boucadair-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh instead of None |
2023-06-21
|
00 | Mohamed Boucadair | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-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 |