Subject: [IPFIX] write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-07

From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:49:23 +0100

Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary,

Below please find the write up for
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-07.
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 in England 2832014

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

Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-07
============================================================

   (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 during
two WG last calls. Several comments were made and have been addressed
when updating the document after the WGLCs.
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.

   (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. The IETF Trust Provisions
Section needs to be updated, since it changed after the current version
was posted. Some references need to be updated, because they have been
published recently as RFCs. Also, in section 6.1 the document uses IPv4
addresses from the range 10.1.1.x in examples. These should be replaced
by addresses of the ranges defined in RFC3330: 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x
or 203.0.113.x.
All of these changes can easily be made in the next update that is
expected after IETF last call.

   (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 have been outdated since the document was submitted
(IPFIX.MIB). This should be fixed after IETF last call. More references
may need an update 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?

The document states correctly that there it has no actions for IANA.

   (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

   This document specifies an improvement to the PR-SCTP
   export specified in the IPFIX specifications in RFC5101.
   This method offers several advantages such as the ability to
   calculate Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate export of
   Template Withdrawal Messages, immediate reuse of Template IDs
   within an SCTP stream, and reduced demands on the Collecting
   Process. 

Working Group Summary

   Flow-based measurement is a popular method for various network
   monitoring usages.  The sharing of flow-based information for
   monitoring applications having different requirements raises some
   open issues in terms of measurement system scalability, flow-based
   measurement flexibility, and export reliability that IPFIX Mediation
   may help resolve.  This document describes some problems related to
   flow-based measurement that network administrators have been facing,
   and then describes IPFIX Mediation applicability examples along with
   the problems.

Document Quality

   The document underwent two WG last call in the IPFIX WG.
   This way, a high document quality has been achieved already.

Personnel

   Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the
   responsible Area director.