On 1/27/14, 4:14 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: >> 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? I'd actually like the communities input that there is not something catastrophically wrong to sending the document on it's merry way that I've missed. >> 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. It seems highly likely that others have both implemented parsing of these IEs and may well do so in the future for IEs which are not depreciated. The fact that these are vendor specific doesn't preclude there being interoperability concerns given that they are by their nature exported. Much of Netflow and IPFIX has at one time been vendor specific. I don't think there much point is asking a working group to hold the pen on this given that existing usage of existing values isn't likely to change. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-02-18. Exceptionally, comments >>> may be >>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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. >> >> . >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature