Reducing Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports
RFC 5473
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-21
|
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
2018-12-20
|
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a bandwidth saving method for exporting Flow or packet information using the IP … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a bandwidth saving method for exporting Flow or packet information using the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol. As the Packet Sampling (PSAMP) protocol is based on IPFIX, these considerations are valid for PSAMP exports as well. This method works by separating information common to several Flow Records from information specific to an individual Flow Record. Common Flow information is exported only once in a Data Record defined by an Options Template, while the rest of the specific Flow information is associated with the common information via a unique identifier. This memo provides information for the Internet community.') |
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from ipfix-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
2009-04-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2009-04-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5473' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-03-31
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
2007-06-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-06-25
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2007-06-25
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-06-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-06-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-06-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-06-22
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21 |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-06-21
|
04 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-06-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-06-20
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-06-20
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-06-20
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-06-20
|
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] The document talks about what IPFIX and PSAMP did and didn't do. It would be better to rephrase things such the text is … [Ballot comment] The document talks about what IPFIX and PSAMP did and didn't do. It would be better to rephrase things such the text is about the RFCs that are out there, rather than the groups that have produced them. |
2007-06-20
|
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-06-07
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
2007-06-07
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2007-06-07
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
2007-06-07
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-06-07
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-06-21 by Dan Romascanu |
2007-05-21
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-05-21
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-04.txt |
2007-05-16
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Dan Romascanu |
2007-05-07
|
04 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comment: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2007-05-03
|
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2007-04-22
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steven Bellovin |
2007-04-22
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steven Bellovin |
2007-04-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2007-04-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-04-19
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
2007-04-19
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
2007-04-19
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-04-19
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-04-19
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-04-02
|
04 | Dinara Suleymanova | 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, … 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? Nevil Brownlee. I have reviewed this draft, I believe it is ready to forward 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? This is version 3 of the draft, it has had extensive review by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG. These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me. (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. The draft is concerned only with improving efficiency for IPFIX export. (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 specific concerns for this document. (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? This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX and PSAMP Working Groups. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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? Idnits tool Version: 2.03.12 found no nits. The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks. (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 and yes. This draft depends on the IPFIX Protocol and IPFIX Info Model, and the PSAMP Protocol drafts; all these drafts are held up waiting for the PSAMP drafts. The PSAMP editors/authors have spent the last six months or more working on the IPFIX documents - those are now (nearly) complete, so they will now work on PSAMP. We expect the PSAMP documents to be submitted to IESG within about three months. (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? This draft has an IANA Considerations section, but it depends only on the CommonPropertiesID information element, which is already defined in the IPFIX Information Model draft. It's IANA Considerations section therefore says that "the 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 This document describes a bandwidth saving method for exporting flow or packet information using the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol. As the PSAMP protocol is based on IPFIX, these considerations are valid for PSAMP exports as well. This method works by separating information common to several flow records from information specific to an individual flow record. Working Group Summary The WG discussed various ways to reduce redundancy in IPFIX records, and has reached consensus on this document. This document does not require any changes to the IPFIX Protocol or Information Model. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by by the IPFIX and PSAMP Working Group Chairs. Personnel Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee Area Director: Dan Romascanu IANA Expert: Not needed (end) |
2007-04-02
|
04 | Dinara Suleymanova | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2007-03-29
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | note from the proto shepherd Nevil Brownlee: Although these ('biflows ' and 'reducing redundacy') drafts are both informational rather than standards track, I'd like them … note from the proto shepherd Nevil Brownlee: Although these ('biflows ' and 'reducing redundacy') drafts are both informational rather than standards track, I'd like them to go through an IETF Last Call, since the IPFIX meeting on Tuesday showed that although we have strong WG consensus, there are some differing opinions, particaularly on biflows. |
2007-03-29
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | The following shepherd document was submitted by Nevil Brownlee: Shepherd Document for draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-03.txt Title: Reducing Redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP Reports Editors: ELisa Boschi, … The following shepherd document was submitted by Nevil Brownlee: Shepherd Document for draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-03.txt Title: Reducing Redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP Reports Editors: ELisa Boschi, Lutz Mark, Benoit Claise As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 1, 2007. (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? Nevil Brownlee. I have reviewed this draft, I believe it is ready to forward 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? This is version 3 of the draft, it has had extensive review by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG. These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me. (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. The draft is concerned only with improving efficiency for IPFIX export. (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 specific concerns for this document. (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? This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX and PSAMP Working Groups. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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? Idnits tool Version: 2.03.12 found no nits. The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks. (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 and yes. This draft depends on the IPFIX Protocol and IPFIX Info Model, and the PSAMP Protocol drafts; all these drafts are held up waiting for the PSAMP drafts. The PSAMP editors/authors have spent the last six months or more working on the IPFIX documents - those are now (nearly) complete, so they will now work on PSAMP. We expect the PSAMP documents to be submitted to IESG within about three months. (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? This draft has an IANA Considerations section, but it depends only on the CommonPropertiesID information element, which is already defined in the IPFIX Information Model draft. It's IANA Considerations section therefore says that "the 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 This document describes a bandwidth saving method for exporting flow or packet information using the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol. As the PSAMP protocol is based on IPFIX, these considerations are valid for PSAMP exports as well. This method works by separating information common to several flow records from information specific to an individual flow record. Working Group Summary The WG discussed various ways to reduce redundancy in IPFIX records, and has reached consensus on this document. This document does not require any changes to the IPFIX Protocol or Information Model. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by by the IPFIX and PSAMP Working Group Chairs. Personnel Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee Area Director: Dan Romascanu IANA Expert: Not needed (end) |
2007-03-29
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Note]: 'Nevil Brownlee is the proto-shepherd' added by Dan Romascanu |
2007-03-29
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Draft Added by Dan Romascanu in state Publication Requested |
2007-03-01
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-03.txt |
2007-01-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-02.txt |
2006-10-26
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-01.txt |
2006-09-06
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-00.txt |