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

[Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/01/2014 12:17, Adrian Farrel 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).

If I would have to chose between, this is closer to the later.
I meant closer, because there is an important clarification here: the review of BCP 184 "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements" must be done.  And the best way to have reviews from more people, not only the IPFIX IE doctors, was to present the work to the IPFIX WG (this was done several times).
So you should see this document as a clean up of the range 1-127, which was allocated to NetFlow v9 at the time, while the IPFIX information elements were standardized. That lead to some IPFIX information elements being deprecated in that range, because there were better standardized solutions:
- samplingInterval, samplingAlgorithm, className standardized in PSAMP
- layer2packetSectionOffset, layer2packetSectionSize, layer2packetSectionData standardized in draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-08 (recently in RFC editor queue)

What would have been really wrong is to try to publish the draft years ago, via the ISE, and pushing proprietary information elements.

Regarding one of your question in the different email: The question might arise as to whether this document is supposed to update 3954.

Not sure that question makes sense.
NetFlow is a confusing term as it covers at the same time the Metering Process, the Exporting Process, and Information Elements (In IPFIX, there are clear distinctions between those terms). This draft doesn't update RFC 3954: there is no NetFlow 9.x. This draft updates the information model (read the IPFIX information elements) used by IPFIX and NetFlow v9 export protocol.

Regards, Benoit

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.

.

.