Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-14

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-tsvwg-udp-ipfix@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-14.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export
   (IPFIX)'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-14.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-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   Information Elements for UDP options.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and
   Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list
   (opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/boucadair/udp-ipfix.

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? 

No. In general, there was enough consensus in the WG that the document was needed.

Document Quality

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

There are no known implementations of the draft. However, the draft is trying to address existing definitions or lack thereof.

There were extensive reviews done by IPFIX doctor and by the INTDIR that resulted in updates to the draft.

Personnel

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

IANA Note

  This document should be considered as part of cluster to three documents, this one, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10, and draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-16.

RFC Editor Note