Subject: [IPFIX] Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:27:46 +0000

Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03
===========================================

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

   The requested type is BCP as stated in the title page header.

(2) 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 provides guidelines for the definition of IPFIX
   Information Elements for addition to the IANA IPFIX Information
   Element registry, in order to extend the applicability of the IPFIX
   protocol to new operations and management areas.

Working Group Summary

   This draft has been discussed already at WG sessions and on the
   mailing list for along time before adopting it as WG work item.
   There was strong consensus on the need for such a document and
   on the general content.  Details has been discussed extensively.
   WGLC was conducted in February 2012.  Raise issues in the LC
   Phase were discussed and fixed.

Document Quality

   This BCP for IPFIX IE doctors summarizes experiences gained in
   several years of dealing with new proposals for IEs.

Personnel

   By default, Benoit Claise would be the responsible area director.
   But since Benoit Claise is co-author of the draft, the responsible
   area director is Ron Bonica.
   Document shepherd is Juergen Quittek.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

   The document shepherd has reviewed the draft and is fully convinced
   that it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

   No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

   There are no such issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

   Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Disclosures.

   No.

(9) 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 as a whole understand and agree with it.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

   No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Thorough.

   The document uses 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword,
   but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.
   This can be fixed after IETF last call.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

   No further formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

   Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

   Yes. There are two:
     - draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-01
     - draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-01
   Both are on the IPFIX WG charter and currently progressing in the WG.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

   No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

   No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

   The draft defines a process for IANA and extends an IANA registry.
   Both issues are well documented in the IANA considerations section.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

   There are no new registries that require expert review requested by
   this draft.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

   None to be done.