Re: Last Call: <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> (Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX) to Informational RFC

[Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@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.

.

.