Subject: [IPFIX] Writeups for IPFIX 'Exporting Types' and 'File Format'

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:35:52 +1300

Hi Dan:

Following up on this morning's IPFIX meeting, here are the writeups
for these two drafts.  Please have a look at them; if they're OK,
please submit the two drafts to IESG for publication as RFCs.

Cheers, nevil

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

Document:  draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-02.txt
Title:     Exporting Type Information for IPFIX Information Elements
Editors:   E. Boschi, B. Trammell, L. Mark, T. Zseby
Intended status:  Standards Track

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 From [email-masked]  Wed Nov 19 12:36:06 2008
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:35:52 +1300
From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: IPFIX list <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IPFIX] Writeups for IPFIX 'Exporting Types' and 'File Format'
Sender: [email-masked]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Hi Dan:

Following up on this morning's IPFIX meeting, here are the writeups
for these two drafts.  Please have a look at them; if they're OK,
please submit the two drafts to IESG for publication as RFCs.

Cheers, nevil

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

Document:  draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-02.txt
Title:     Exporting Type Information for IPFIX Information Elements
Editors:   E. Boschi, B. Trammell, L. Mark, T. Zseby
Intended status:  Standards Track

As required by RFC-to-be draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. 
Changes arexpected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

(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 is ready to forward 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?

        This is version 2 of the draft.  It has had extensive review
        by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG.
        These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me.

(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.  The draft is concerned only with specifying a 
        way to export data type information about IPFIX Information
        Elements, so that developers of Anaalysis tools for IPFIX
        data will  have an effective way to handle non-standard
        Information Elements.

(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.

        There are no specific concerns for this document.

(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?

        This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX
        Working Group. 

(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?

        idnits 2.10.02 says
          a. Change boilerplate to RFC 4748-style
               16 Dec 08 is the 'required from' date
          b. One unused reference (to RFC5102)
               can be deleted
          c. Outdated reference to psamp-info-08
               This draft is now in RFC Editor queue

        b. and c. can be fixed at Authors 48hr edits,
        a. could also be fixed that way if neccessary.

        The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks.

(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 de expected over time. This version is dated September 17, 2008.

(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 is ready to forward 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?

        This is version 2 of the draft.  It has had extensive review
        by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG.
        These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me.

(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.  The draft is concerned only with specifying a 
        way to export data type information about IPFIX Information
        Elements, so that developers of Anaalysis tools for IPFIX
        data will  have an effective way to handle non-standard
        Information Elements.

(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.

        There are no specific concerns for this document.

(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?

        This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX
        Working Group. 

(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?

        idnits 2.10.02 says
          a. Change boilerplate to RFC 4748-style
               16 Dec 08 is the 'required from' date
          b. One unused reference (to RFC5102)
               can be deleted
          c. Outdated reference to psamp-info-08
               This draft is now in RFC Editor queue

        b. and c. can be fixed at Authors 48hr edits,
        a. could also be fixed that way if neccessary.

        The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks.

(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, the references are split.
        No, now that psamp-info is in RFC EDitor queue, all the
          normative reference RFCs do (or will soon) exist.
        No, there are no downward references.

(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?

        The document has an IANA Considerations section that
        clearly explains what IANA should do.  It asks for:
          8 new Information Element numbers in the IPFIX IE Registry
          3 new subregistries for:
            IE Data Types, IE Semantics, IE Units
        This all seems sensible and clear to me.  Also, I have
        discussed it with Michelle Cotton (IANA); she agreed that
        now we have an IPFIX sub-registries entry in the IANA pages,
        there should be no problem adding three more sub-registries.

(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?

        The document has no parts written 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 

This document describes an extension to IPFIX to allow the encoding of
IPFIX Information Model properties within an IPFIX Message stream.
This enables the export of extended type information for enterprise-
specific Information Elements, facilitating interoperability and
reusability among a wide variety of applications and tools.

Working Group Summary 

This document started out as a section in the 'IPFIX File' draft;
it was split out because it is useful in other contexts than files
of IPFIX data.   There was considerable mailing-list discussion on
the best ways to do this, it took several months for all the issues
to be resolved.  Discussion ended late in June 08.  The final version
of this draft (July 08) resolved issues raised in discussion.
The WG has reached a clear consensus on this draft.

Document Quality

This document has been reviwed by Paul Aitken and Gerhard Muenz;
their reviews prompted discussion on the list.  It has also been
reviewed by the WG chairs.  It describes a set of new IPFIX Information
Elements, but does not make any changes to the IPFIX protocol.

Document:  draft-ietf-ipfix-file-03.txt
Title:     Specification of the IPFIX File Format
Editors:   B. Trammell, E. Boschi, L. Mark, T. Zseby, A. Wagner
Intended status:  Standards Track

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 September 17, 2008.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the 
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
      document and, in particulaownward references to support the Area 
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

        Yes, the references are split.
        No, now that psamp-info is in RFC EDitor queue, all the
          normative reference RFCs do (or will soon) exist.
        No, there are no downward references.

(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?

        The document has an IANA Considerations section that
        clearly explains what IANA should do.  It asks for:
          8 new Information Element numbers in the IPFIX IE Registry
          3 new subregistries for:
            IE Data Types, IE Semantics, IE Units
        This all seems sensible and clear to me.  Also, I have
        discussed it with Michelle Cotton (IANA); she agreed that
        now we have an IPFIX sub-registries entry in the IANA pages,
        there should be no problem adding three more sub-registries.

(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?

        The document has no parts written 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 

This document describes an extension to IPFIX to allow the encoding of
IPFIX Information Model properties within an IPFIX Message stream.
This enables the export of extended type information for enterprise-
specific Information Elements, facilitating interoperability and
reusability among a wide variety of applications and tools.

Working Group Summary 

This document started out as a section in the 'IPFIX File' draft;
it was split out because it is useful in other contexts than files
of IPFIX data.   There was considerable mailing-list discussion on
the best ways to do this, it took several months for all the issues
to be resolved.  Discussion ended late in June 08.  The final version
of this draft (July 08) resolved issues raised in discussion.
The WG has reached a clear consensus on this draft.

Document Quality

This document has been reviwed by Paul Aitken and Gerhard Muenz;
their reviews prompted discussion on the list.  It has also been
reviewed by the WG chairs.  It describes a set of new IPFIX Information
Elements, but does not make any changes to the IPFIX protocol.

Document:  draft-ietf-ipfix-file-03.txt
Title:     Specification of the IPFIX File Format
Editors:   B. Trammell, E. Boschi, L. Mark, T. Zseby, A. Wagner
Intended status:  Standards Track

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 September 17, 2008.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the 
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the 
      document and, in particular,r, 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 is ready to forward 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?

        This is version 3 of the draft.  It has had extensive review
        by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG.
        These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me.

(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.  The draft is concerned only with specifying a 
        way to store IPFIX Information in files so as to preserve
        it for later use, e.g. for analysis by application programs,
        for testing IPFIX colletcors, etc.

(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.

        There are no specific concerns for this document.

(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?

        This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX
        Working Group. 

(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?

        idnits 2.10.02 says
          a. Change boilerplate to RFC 4748-style
               16 Dec 08 is the 'required from' date
          b. Possible downref to ' IPFIX Exporting Types' draft
               This draft is now in RFC Editor queue

        b. Exporting Types is Standards Track, no problem.
        a. could be fixed in RFC Editor 48hr

        The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks.

(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, the references are split.
        No, the only dangling reference is to the IPFIX Exporting
          Types draft; I'm submitting that together with this one.
        No, there are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Docu 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 is ready to forward 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?

        This is version 3 of the draft.  It has had extensive review
        by the WG members, and by others from the PSAMP WG.
        These reviews seem sufficiently thorough to me.

(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.  The draft is concerned only with specifying a 
        way to store IPFIX Information in files so as to preserve
        it for later use, e.g. for analysis by application programs,
        for testing IPFIX colletcors, etc.

(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.

        There are no specific concerns for this document.

(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?

        This document has strong consensus within the IPFIX
        Working Group. 

(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?

        idnits 2.10.02 says
          a. Change boilerplate to RFC 4748-style
               16 Dec 08 is the 'required from' date
          b. Possible downref to ' IPFIX Exporting Types' draft
               This draft is now in RFC Editor queue

        b. Exporting Types is Standards Track, no problem.
        a. could be fixed in RFC Editor 48hr

        The draft is IPFIX-centric, it needs no other formal checks.

(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, the references are split.
        No, the only dangling reference is to the IPFIX Exporting
          Types draft; I'm submitting that together with this one.
        No, there are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Documement 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?

        The document has an IANA Considerations section that
        clearly explains what IANA should do.  It asks for
        16 new Information Element numbers in the IPFIX IE Registry.
        Now that the IFIX IE Registry is in production, this is
        a simple addition to it.

(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?

        The document has no parts written 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 

This document describes a file format for the storage of flow data
based upon the IPFIX Protocol.  It proposes a set of requirements for
flat-file, binary flow data file formats, then specifies the IPFIX
File format to meet these requirements based upon IPFIX Messages.
This IPFIX File format is designed to facilitate interoperability and
reusability among a wide variety of flow storage, processing, and
analysis tools.

Working Group Summary 

Work started on this document in 2006, and has gone through several
revisions in response to mailing list discussion.  Originally it 
included the material about 'exporting type information,' but the
WG split it out into a seperate RFC to make it more easily accessible
for other uses.  The WG has reached a clear consensus on this draft.

Document Quality

This document has been reviwed by Benoit Claise, Paul Aitken, Andrew
Johnson, and Gerhard Muenz, as well as by the WG chairs.  It specifies
a file format for IPFIX data, making the point that this is simply
another data transport for IPFIX.  It does not make any changes to the
IPFIX protocol.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix