Subject: [IPFIX] Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-06.txt

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:32:46 +1200

Hi Ron:

I'm sending this shepherd write-up to you since Benoit is one of
this draft's authors.  Please start the process of submitting it
to IESG for us.

Cheers, Nevil

Document:  draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-06.txt
Title:     Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 
Protocol
Editors:   Brian Trammell, Arno Wagner, Benoit Claise
Intended status:  Standards Track

  (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?

   Standards Track.  Needs to be so that all implementations will
   aggregate IPFIX flow data in the same way.  Yes, its header says
   'Standards Track.'

  (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 a common implementation-independent basis
     for the interoperable application of the IP Flow Information
     Export (IPFIX) Protocol to the handling of Aggregated Flows, which
     are IPFIX Flows representing packets from multiple Original Flows
     that share some set of common properties.

   Working Group Summary
     This draft attracted real discussion on the IPFIX list, and took
     time to reach consensus on its final approach, i.e. "through a
     detailed terminology and a descriptive Intermediate Aggregation
     Process architecture, including a specification of methods for
     Original Flow counting and counter distribution across intervals."

   Document Quality
     Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
     significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
     implement the specification?
     I'm not aware of any, so far.

     Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having
     done a thorough review ... ?
     Rahul Patel was a strong contributor to the discussion,
     Paul Aitken provided a very thorough review.

   Personnel
     Who is the Document Shepherd?          Nevil Brownlee
     Who is the Responsible Area Director?  Benoit Claise

  (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.

   I have followed this draft carefully from its -00 version, particularly
   it's notion of of 'spatial aggregation,' a topic which needs careful
   definition of its terms!  I feel 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.  This draft follows tha IPFIX naming conventions; those are
   its only external dependencies.

  (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.

   No (but see section 8).

  (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 (see section 8 for more detail)

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

   We (the IPFIX WG) were unaware of any IPR for this draft until it
   was in WG Last Call.  Carter Bullard raised the question, we now
   have two IPR decparations (Avaya and Cisco) and no others have
   come forward.

  (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 has reached strong consensus on this draft.

(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.

   ID-nits says "0 errors"

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

   No formal reviews 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?

   Normative reference to I-D 5101-bis.
   IPFIX 5101bis (and 5102bis) are close to WG Last Call,
   that's now the WG's highest-priority activity.

(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's IANA Considerations only requires some new IPFIX
   Information Elements to be assigned, its instructions for that
   are clear and consistent.

(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.

   No new registries.

(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.

   No sections in a formal language.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  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