Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports
draft-ietf-psamp-info-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Ward |
2012-08-22
|
11 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Dan Romascanu |
2009-01-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-01-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-01-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-12-18
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-11-25
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-11-19
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Dan Romascanu |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-18
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
2008-11-07
|
11 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-11-06
|
11 | David Ward | [Ballot comment] The RFC Editor note clears my discuss. |
2008-11-06
|
11 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Ward |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I am holding a DISCUSS on behalf of IANA who asked for one more day in order to assess carefully this document and … [Ballot discuss] I am holding a DISCUSS on behalf of IANA who asked for one more day in order to assess carefully this document and its implications for IANA |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Dan Romascanu |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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 . |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-11-06
|
11 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-11-05
|
11 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-11-05
|
11 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-11-05
|
11 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-11-05
|
11 | David Ward | [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS DISCUSS: I don't understand from this document how to represent "errored packets." I see the packet sampling model and I see how … [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS DISCUSS: I don't understand from this document how to represent "errored packets." I see the packet sampling model and I see how psamp is passing errors but, the way to represent "I want to know information about errored packets (e.g. bad chksum, malformed, etc)" isn't explained. I apologize in advance if this is covered elsewhere but, it appears to only represent "positive data" and not "negative data." |
2008-11-05
|
11 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-11-05
|
11 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-11-05
|
11 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-11-04
|
11 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-11-04
|
11 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Section 8 states: The Information Elements specified by the IPFIX information model [RFC5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol … [Ballot comment] 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? |
2008-11-04
|
11 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-10-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
2008-10-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2008-10-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
2008-10-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-10-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-11-06 by Dan Romascanu |
2008-10-20
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-10-20
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-11.txt |
2008-10-02
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-29
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: [Note to Author: Please collate the registrations of the Information Elements into a table either in the IANA Considerations section or … IANA Last Call comments: [Note to Author: Please collate the registrations of the Information Elements into a table either in the IANA Considerations section or in an Appendix.] Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml sub-registry "IPFIX Information Elements" [ INSERT TABLE HERE -- waiting for update from Author ] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following changes in "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/psamp-parameters/psamp-parameters.xhtml OLD: ID Algorithm Reference -- ------------------ ----------------- 0 Reserved [RFC-ietf-psamp-protocol-09] 1 Systematic count-based Sampling [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 2 Systematic time-based Sampling [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 3 Random n-out-of-N Sampling [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 4 Uniform probabilistic Sampling [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 5 Property match Filtering [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 6 Hash based Filtering using BOB [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 7 Hash based Filtering using IPSX [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 8 Hash based Filtering using CRC [draft-ietf-psamp-info-09] 9-65535 Unassigned NEW: +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | ID | Method | Parameters | Reference | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | 1 | Systematic count-based | samplingPacketInterval | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | | Sampling | samplingPacketSpace | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | 2 | Systematic time-based | samplingTimeInterval | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | | Sampling | samplingTimeSpace | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | 3 | Random n-out-of-N | samplingSize | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | | Sampling | samplingPopulation | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | 4 | Uniform probabilistic | samplingProbability | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | | Sampling | | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | 5 | Property match | no agreed parameters | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | | Filtering | | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ | Hash based Filtering | hashInitialiserValue | | +----+------------------------+ hashIPPayloadOffset | | | 6 | using BOB | hashIPPayloadSize | | +----+------------------------+ hashSelectedRangeMin | [RFC-psamp-info-10] | | 7 | using IPSX | hashSelectedRangeMax | | +----+------------------------+ hashOutputRangeMin | | | 8 | using CRC | hashOutputRangeMax | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ +9- | Unassigned | | | +65535| | | | +----+------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+ We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-09-29
|
11 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-09-16
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2008-09-16
|
11 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2008-09-15
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-09-15
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-09-15
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-15
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-15
|
11 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-09-15
|
11 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-09-15
|
11 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-09-11
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-09-11
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-10.txt |
2008-07-14
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Dan Romascanu |
2008-07-14
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
2008-07-14
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Draft-09 left 2 open points under discussion * dataLinkFrameSize - usage and meaning of this element is unclear * padding - usage of padding for … Draft-09 left 2 open points under discussion * dataLinkFrameSize - usage and meaning of this element is unclear * padding - usage of padding for the ...Section elements These issues will be discussed at the IETF meeting in Dublin. |
2008-07-14
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-07-14
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-09.txt |
2008-06-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-29
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | AD Review by Dan Romascanu Please find below the AD evaluation of draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt. The document has reached a fair state of maturity and stability, yet … AD Review by Dan Romascanu Please find below the AD evaluation of draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt. The document has reached a fair state of maturity and stability, yet there are a number of issues to be discussed and fixed, and probably a revised ID will be needed before proceeding to IETF Last Call. Please find below my questions and comments, grouped in Technical and Editorial. Technical T1. E2. Section 7, second paragraph - it is not clear what 'special information' means here, and thus what this paragraph is saying. T2. Section 10.2 specifies that for new selection methods 'configuration parametr(s), along with the way to report it/them with an Options Template, MUST be clearly specified. Should not this information be also clearly specified for the initial set of eight selector algorithms described in 8.2.4? Or maybe they are specified someplace else - reference should be provided here if so. T3. Section 8.2.4 New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to Expert Review [RFC2434]. The policy here should be Expert Review as per RFC5226, no need to mention FCFS (actually you can't have two policies in place and what numbers are allocated is the IANA business) T4. Section 8.2.11 - why is Abstract Data type float64 needed? It looks to me like float32 would be enough to express a probability value, or am I missing something? T5. Section 9 - Security Considerations. It would be good to borrow as is or with minimal adaptations the following two paragraphs from the Security Considerations section of RFC5102: For example, exporting values of header fields may make attacks possible for the receiver of this information, which would otherwise only be possible for direct observers of the reported Flows along the data path. The underlying protocol used to exchange the information described here must therefore apply appropriate procedures to guarantee the integrity and confidentiality of the exported information. Such protocols are defined in separate documents, specifically the IPFIX protocol document [RFC5101]. T6. Section 10.2 New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to Expert Review [RFC2434]. Same comment as in T3, the policy should be just Expert Review as per RFC5226 Editorial E1. T2. [RFC2404] was obsoleted and replaced by [RFC5226] - make the change in the references and all over the document. E2. It should be added in Section 5 that the documents uses the Data Types described in Section 3.1 of [RFC5102] E3. Section 8.2.4 - s/The selectorAlgorithm registry is maintained by IANA and can be updated as long as specifications/The selectorAlgorithm registry is maintained by IANA and can be updated when specifications/ E4. Section 8.2.6 - s/A value of 100 means that the next interval starts after 100 packets (which are not sampled) when the current "samplingPacketInterval" is over./A value of 100 means that the next interval starts 100 packets (which are not sampled) after the current "samplingPacketInterval" is over./ E5. Section 8.2.8 - s//A value of 100 means that the next interval starts after 100 packets (which are not sampled) when the current "samplingTimeInterval" is over./A value of 100 means that the next interval starts 100 packets (which are not sampled) after the current "samplingTimeInterval" is over./ |
2008-06-24
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-02
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | PROTO write-up by Juergen Quittek Write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08 ===================================== (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the … PROTO write-up by Juergen Quittek Write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08 ===================================== (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 reviewed it personally and believes that this version 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? The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members. The shepherd has no concern about the depth or 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? The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review. The contained XML document is fully in line with the corresponding XML document of the IPFIX information model. It has been validated by the document shepherd. (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 is no such concern. (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 strong consensus in the PSAMP WG as well as in the IPFIX WG to publish this version of the document. There are no particular issues in the document without strong consensus of both WGs. (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.) There was no appeal. (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? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The WG shepherd checked for ID nits and validated the contained XML document. Also boilerplates have been checked. (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]. One reference has been outdated since the document was submitted: RFC 2434 has recently been obsoleted by RFC 5226. This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references may be obsoleted by then. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations 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 the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? IANA considerations have been checked. (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? Yes. The contained XML document was validated using Sun's Multi-Schema XML Validator (MSV) (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 This memo defines an information model for the Packet Sampling (PSAMP) protocol. It is used by the PSAMP protocol for encoding sampled packet data and information related to the Sampling process. As the PSAMP protocol is based on the IPFIX protocol, this information model is an extension to the IPFIX information model. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents. Document Quality Several of the Information Elements defined in this document have already been implemented by academic as well as industrial institutions. But not all of them have been implemented and tested, yet. Personnel Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible Area director. |
2008-06-02
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | Draft Added by Dan Romascanu in state Publication Requested |
2008-06-02
|
11 | Dan Romascanu | [Note]: 'Juergen Quittek is the PROTO shepherd' added by Dan Romascanu |
2008-02-22
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.txt |
2007-10-12
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-07.txt |
2007-06-11
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-06.txt |
2006-10-26
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-05.txt |
2006-03-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-04.txt |
2005-10-27
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-03.txt |
2004-07-22
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-02.txt |
2004-02-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-01.txt |
2003-10-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-psamp-info-00.txt |