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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 28 January 2014 00:15
> To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> 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@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.
> >
> > .
> >