Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX document status

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:23:37 +0100

Dear all,

I went through the following process for me. So let me share with the group.

draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
         Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis]
         Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO], [IE-DOCTORS], 
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL]
         Status: passed the IESG, will be in the RFC-EDITOR soon

draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-07
         Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis]
         Informative Reference:
         Status: one DISCUSS, waiting for rfc5102bis to go through the IESG

draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
         Normative Reference: [RFC5102bis]
         Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
         Status: ready for WGLC

draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-07
         Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [IE-DOCTORS]
         Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
         Status: ready for AD review

draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-12
         Normative Reference:
         Informative Reference:
         Status: waiting for the next version to pass the AD review

Conclusions:
1. [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], [IPFIX-A9N], and [IE-DOCTORS] have 
normative references to each others.
     So they will have to be published together.
     Out of these four, RFC5101 is the bottleneck. So WGLC should start soon
2. While [IPFX-MED-PROTO] is only an informative reference for some 
other documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it 
could referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]
3. [IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] doesn't have any reference dependencies.  While 
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] is only informative a reference for some other 
documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it could 
referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]

Regards, Benoit