Cisco Systems Export of Application Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
RFC 6759

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-17 for -09)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my concerns

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-18 for -09)
No email
send info
As with similar "Company X's FooBar" documents, I think it is bizarre to let the boilerplate say that the IETF has consensus that this is what Cisco does.

Though I am opposed to IETF work on DPI and supporting technologies like this as they are clearly hopeless and fundamentally harmful to the Internet, I have no technical arguments with this document and no objection to publishing what Cisco is doing in this regard.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-19 for -09)
No email
send info
To the AD:

Could you update the ballot and approval notes to reflect the new
name of the document, please.


To the Authors

The first section could really do with having text that explains (per
the title and Abstract - but in a little more detail) that this is a
Cisco-proprietary extension to IPFIX.

I found a very skimpy sentence in Section 2 (which made me recall that
I like it when the first section of a document is the Introduction :-)

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-21 for -07)
No email
send info
- The reference to seems wonderfully
vague, but unfortunately useless. What are the "Cisco
systems assigned numbers"? (I agree with this bit of
Stewart's discuss)

- 2.1: I don't think I buy the congestion control use
case. (While I don't like the security use case, I do
agree others might like it.)

- 4.1: is this encouraging folks to guess what IANA might
allocate for IANA to act? Seems like a bad idea.o

- 4.2: PANA-L* - I don't get how this works.  How can you
assign selector lengths for the PANA-L* in 4.2?

- section 7: I don't get how some ElementId's are assigned
here already but are marked as reserved in the IANA

- AppA: How is section 7 of an informative document

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-19 for -09)
No email
send info
I agree with the comments that the boilerplate for this sort of document is odd.  I think we need to look at the choices we have for what to say at the beginnings of documents, and make sure there's a good, standard option for "this is not a consensus document; we're just putting it out for information."  Or maybe this says that this should have gone through the ISE.

In any case, I have no objection to publishing this, so here we go.

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-09)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my issue.

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) Recuse