Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for IPFIX Flow Selection Draft

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:28:26 -0800

Hi Dan:

Here's the write-up for this draft, would you please submit it
to IESG for publication.  I realise that it's not long until IETF-83,
however I'm sending this to you now because it should complete
the work items of the IPFIX charter's previous version.

Cheers, Nevil

Draft: draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt
Title: Flow Selection Techniques

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's ready
   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?

   Yes.  This draft had a WGLC in August 2011, which raised important
   issues, mostly concerning its relationship to the PSAMP selection
   RFC.  It was revised to address those issues, and had a second
   WGLC in February 2012.  That raised a few further issues; these have
   been addressed in the current version.

    (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.

    (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.

   This draft raised IPR concerns, in the same manner as the PSAMP
   selection draft had done.  Nick Duffield (AT&T) commented that
   the AT&T IPR claim relates only to statistical sampling, and PSAMP
   handled this by saying "at least on of the sampling techniques
   must be implemented."
   In this draft, we have tightened that up a little by saying
   "a conforming implementation MUST implement at least the
   Property Match Filtering."

    (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?

   The WG has reached full consensus on this draft.

    (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?

   The ID nits checker finds six nots concerned with references.
   In my opinion these are all Editorial, and - since the IETF-83
   drafts deadline is very close now - can be fixed later on,
   say after IETF Last Call.

    (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.  There no references to non-existing documents.
   The only issue here are the ID nits mentioned above.

    (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?

   Yes.  No new IANA registries are required.

    (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 sections in a formal language.

    (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
    Flow selection is the process of selecting a subset of flows from all
    observed flows.  The Flow Selection Process may be located at an
    observation point, or on an IPFIX Mediator.  Flow selection reduces
    the effort of post-processing flow data and transferring Flow
    Records.  This document describes motivations for flow selection and
    presents flow selection techniques.  It provides an information model
    for configuring flow selection techniques and discusses what
    information about a flow selection process should be exported.

           Working Group Summary
    This document has been extensively reviewed by the WG, and has
    had two WGLCs.  I believe that all the issues raised have been
    resolved; we now have clear WG consensus.

           Document Quality
    I'm not aware of any implementations of IPFIX flow selection.
    Brian Trammell provided reviews that were particularly useful
    to the draft's authors.

           Personnel
   Shepherd: Nevil Brownlee
   AD: Dan Romascanu / Benoit Claise
   IANA Expert:  Nevil Brownlee / Juergen Quittek

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand