Subject: [Int-area] Request to publish draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:45:34 -0700

Secretariat (BCC'd):

This is a request to publish
draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02. Please find
below the I-D write-up.

--julien

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

 (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?

Julien Laganier is the document shepherd for this document. He has
personally reviewed this version of the document and believes it is
ready for forwarding to the IESG 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?

The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members.The document
shepherd does not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of
the reviews received.

 (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?

The document shepherd has no such concerns.

 (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.

The document shepherd has no such concerns.

 (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?

There is solid WG consensus behind this document.

 (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 threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been expressed
regarding this document.

 (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
       document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
       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 document shepherd has personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits.

 (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].

References are split into normative and informative sections.

 (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

This document has an IANA considerations section and no IANA
considerations that needs to be taken care of.

 (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 such sections.

 (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

   In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing
techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log
port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP
address.

     Working Group Summary

   There is solid WG consensus behind the recommendation being made by
this document

     Document Quality

    The recommendation is already implemented in a certain number of situations.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:59:50 +0200

I have reviewed this draft and I believe it is ready to move forward. 
IETF Last Call has been requested.

But I do have two suggestions for changes, and would like to ask the 
authors to update the document (even during the last call that will 
probably start today):

> According to the most recent predictions, the global IPv4 address
> free pool at IANA will exhaust sometime in 2011.

This could now be written in a different way.

> Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not
> immediately foreseen in IPv6
I would really like to see this change: s/immediately foreseen/foreseen/

Jari

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:04:04 -0800

OK. New rev on its way.

  - Alain.

On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:15:03 -0800

-03 rev posted.

Alain

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:44:46 +0200

Alain,

Thank you for your very quick action on this.

Jari