Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05

From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:15:45 +0100

Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary,

Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05.
The draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

Best regards,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]        Tel: +49 6221 4342-115
NEC Europe Limited,    Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 4342-155
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK
Registered From [email-masked]  Sun Dec 14 04:16:23 2008
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:15:45 +0100
From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Romascanu" <[email-masked]>,
	"IESG Secretary" <[email-masked]>,
	"IETF IPFIX Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05
Sender: [email-masked]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary,

Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05.
The draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

Best regards,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]        Tel: +49 6221 4342-115
NEC Europe Limited,    Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 4342-155
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK
Registered inin England 2832014

==========================================================================

Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05
====================================

   (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?
          
Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally
and believes that this version 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 had multiple individual reviews from key WG members.
The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

   (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 sees no need for an additional particular review
except that a review by a MIB doctor is required.

   (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 is no such concern.

   (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 a strong consensus in the IPFIX WG to publish this version
of the document. There are no particular issues in the document
without strong consensus in the IPFIX WG.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There was no appeal.

   (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document shepherd checked for ID nits and validated the contained SMI
section with smilint. No issues have been found.

   (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
       England 2832014

==========================================================================

Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-05
====================================

   (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?
          
Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd. He has reviewed it personally
and believes that this version 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 had multiple individual reviews from key WG members.
The shepherd has no concern about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

   (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 sees no need for an additional particular review
except that a review by a MIB doctor is required.

   (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 is no such concern.

   (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 a strong consensus in the IPFIX WG to publish this version
of the document. There are no particular issues in the document
without strong consensus in the IPFIX WG.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

There was no appeal.

   (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document shepherd checked for ID nits and validated the contained SMI
section with smilint. No issues have been found.

   (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].

One reference has been outdated since the document was submitted:
RFC 2434 has recently been obsoleted by RFC 5226. This should be fixed
after IETF last call. More references may be obsoleted by then.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations have been checked.

   (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?

Yes. The contained MIB module has been checked with smilint.

   (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 defines managed objects for IP Flow Information Export
   (IPFIX).  These objects provide information for monitoring IPFIX
   Exporters and IPFIX Collectors including the basic configuration
   information.

Working Group Summary

   This work originates from the PSAMP MIB module. The PSAMP WG had MIB
   development already chartered when there was no such plan in the
   IPFIX WG. But after the first versions of the PSAMP MIB module had
   been discussed it became clear that a lot of its content should
   rather be part of an IPFIX MIB module than of a PSAMP MIB module.
   Therefore, the IPFIX WG got a MIB module into its charter and took
   over most of the content of the former PSAMP MIB. The PSAMP MIB
   module is to be completed after the completions of the IPFIX MIB
   module.

Document Quality

   The document underwent several reviews and two WG last calls in
   the IPFIX WG. This way, a high document quality has been achieved
   already. Still a review by a MIB doctor would be desirable.

Personnel

   Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the
   responsible Area director.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix