Adrian,
Nicely said.
If we can give reviewers a clue about what we hope they are looking for,
we're more likely to get the results we hope for.
And being accurate about the review we asked for in the final document seems
helpful.
Spencer
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Thanks Benoit,
And I am not much concerned with the process here as with the meaning of
the
IETF last call.
Reading the document, I don't understand what would happen if I found
something
that I thought should be different. It looks to me that this is a record
of what
has been implemented and deployed. That is fine and good, but I don't see
what
my review is supposed to give as input.
It seems to me that either this is an IETF document describing some IPFIX
widgets (drop all the Cisco stuff, get the WG to agree they want the
feature,
and let the IETF do a proper review probably as Standards Track) or it is a
record of what Cisco did (continue to publish it, but don't ask for review
of
the content).
Joel points out that it is valuable to check that the publication of this
document doesn't break anything else. I think that is a fine answer to my
question and would ask that, in future, when the scope or intent of a last
call
is limited, that limit be explicitly called out in the last call so that
no-one
waste review effort. I also think that when the RFC is published it should
not
use boilerplate that says the document is a product of the IETF if the
IETF did
not have the opportunity to edit the technical content. It would be better
to
say that the IETF had consensus to publish the document but that it is not
a
product of the IETF.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com <javascript:;>]
Sent: 28 January 2014 00:15
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk <javascript:;>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco
Specific
Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
Adrian,
Not an answer to the process question, but some background information
on this draft.
This draft, which is now 3 years old, has been evolving with the IPFIX
standardization.
For example, looking at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt,
you can see the interaction with the IPFIX WG document
ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring: now that
ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring is in the RFC editor queue, the
draft has been simplified, and some IPFIX Information Elements in the
range 1-127 became deprecated.
This explains why the draft has been presented and reviewed multiple
times in the IPFIX WG, and also why it would benefit from a wider review
than the independent stream.
Regards, Benoit (as draft author)
Hi,
I have a process question on this last call which is not clear from
the last
call text.
Are we being asked to consider whether publication of this document is
useful,
or are we being asked for IETF consensus on the *content* of the
document?
It seems from the document that the content is descriptive of something
implemented by a single vendor. I applaud putting that information
into the
public domain, but I don't understand the meaning of IETF consensus
with
respect
to this document.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: IETF-Announce
[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<javascript:;>]
On Behalf Of
The
IESG
Sent: 21 January 2014 12:33
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco
Specific
Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX'
<draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;> mailing lists by 2014-02-18.
Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;> instead. In either case,
please
retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document describes some additional Information Elements of
Cisco
Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
.