A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting
draft-ietf-psamp-framework-13

PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes
it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

An adequate review by key WG members was performed. The document shepherd
has no concerns about depth and breadth of the reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are no such concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is a solid WG consensus on the content of the draft.
However, it was discussed controversially whether this document
should become an informational RFC or a standards track RFC.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are split into two sections.
The normative references include IPFIX and PSAMP WG documents.
The dependence to the IPFIX drafts is necessary since the IPFIX
protocol was chosen as basis for the PSAMP protocol.
All IPFIX WG documents that are referenced as normative are already
in the RFC Editor queue. For two PSAMP WG documents that are referenced
as normative publication as RFC has already been requested. The remaining
PSAMP WG document that is referenced as normative (ietf-psamp-info-model)
in still progressing. Currently, the WG is focused on completing this
document.
All normative references that are not PSAMP or IPFIX WG documents
have already been published as RFC.
There are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There is a section on IANA considerations and it correctly states that
this document has no actions for IANA.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

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

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?

Technical Summary

This document specifies a framework for the PSAMP (Packet
SAMPling) protocol. The functions of this protocol are to select
packets from a stream according to a set of standardized
selectors, to form a stream of reports on the selected packets,
and to export the reports to a collector. This framework details
the components of this architecture, then describes some generic
requirements, motivated by the dual aims of ubiquitous deployment
and utility of the reports for applications. Detailed
requirements for selection, reporting and exporting are
described, along with configuration requirements of the PSAMP
functions.

Working Group Summary

This document was a regular WG document. There is strong consensus
in the working group that this framework is an appropriate solution.

Document Quality

There are no known implementations yet, but two vendors
and academic research institutes announced implementations.
The document is fully supported by the WG and there has no
concerns been raised that there are better alternatives or
that the document is not useful.