Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information
   Elements'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

Working Group Summary

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

This text from the Shepherd's writeup summarizes the reason for the document, and why there was a strong consensus on the document.

Within the working group, this document was seen as valuable since it addresses
the current limitations of IPFIX entity 209 tcpOptions and 64 ipv6ExtensionHeaders.
OPSAWG reached a 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.

Document Quality

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

The document does not have any known implementations. But it trying to address the gaps in the existing IPFIX document. This like the other documents in this cluster, went through a review by the IPFIX doctor and SECDIR.

Personnel

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

IANA Note

This document should be treated as a cluster with this document, draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-12, and draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10.

RFC Editor Note