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.')

[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.

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)

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.

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)