Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports
draft-ietf-psamp-info-11
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-06)
Unknown
The RFC Editor note clears my discuss.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-06)
Unknown
In Section 8.2.4 and 8.2.5, data type should probably be "unsigned32" (or some other integer/float type), not dateTimeMicroseconds? The spec uses "quantity" semantics for many information elements that don't look like quantities (where e.g. adding two values doesn't make sense), such as digestHashValue, hashDigestOutput, hashInitialiservalue, ipHeaderPacketSection, ipPayloadPacketSection, mplsLabelStackSection, and mplsPayloadPacketSection, Appendix A says "The use of Namespaces as an extension mechanism implies that an IANA registered Namespace URI should be available and that directory names below this base URI be assigned for relevant IETF specifications. The authors are not aware of this mechanism today." IANA does register namespace URIs; see RFC 3688 for more information .
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-11-04)
Unknown
Section 8 states: The Information Elements specified by the IPFIX information model [RFC5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol where applicable. The document does not provide any guidance on the subset of RFC5106 that is applicable to the psamp information model. Are implementations expected to support the entire IPFIX information model?