Thanks Benoit, that is an important point and is really helpful.
So, do I read you right if I say that this document records some NetFlow v9
features and codepoints that were accidentally missed when RFC 3954 was written.
Or are these later modifications to NetFlow v9 (let's call it v9.x) that use the
same code point range but were not actually part of v9?
The question might arise as to whether this document is supposed to update 3954.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 28 January 2014 09:47
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Andrew
Yourtchenko
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific
Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
Let me reply to myself: I forgot an important point, which might be useful if
people start discussing AD sponsoring of this document, without actually having
read it.
Let me stress the first sentence of the Introduction section.
The section 4 of [RFC7012] defines the IPFIX Information Elements in
the range of 1-127 to be compatible with the NetFlow version 9
fields, as specified in the "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
Version 9" [RFC3954].
So this draft is clearly linked to the work in IPFIX RFC 7012 (IPFIX information
model) and must follow the RFC 7013 rules (Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers
of IPFIX Information Elements), therefore would benefit from more reviews.
It's probably not too clear from the abstract, and should be improved.
OLD:
This document describes some additional Information Elements of Cisco
Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954
NEW:
This document describes some additional IPFIX Information Elements in
the range of 1-127, which is the range compatible with field types used
by NetFlow version 9 in RFC3954 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3954> , as
specified in the IPFIX Information Model
RFC 7012.
Regards, Benoit (an as author)
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] 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 mailing lists by 2014-02-18. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 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.
.
.