Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the work.
The changes together with the email discussion have clarified the situation with
regard to my question.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Yourtchenko [mailto:ayourtch(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: 13 February 2014 20:05
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific
Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC
Hello Adrian,
I've uploaded today the
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-10 that hopefully
took into account the review by changing the text of the Abstract and
Introduction.
Please take a look for the new revision, and let us know what you think.
Many thanks!
--a
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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, 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.
.
.