Skip to main content

Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports
RFC 5477

Yes

(Dan Romascanu)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Discuss, Yes) Yes
Yes ()

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2008-11-06)
The RFC Editor note clears my discuss.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-11-06)
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 ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-11-04)
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?