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@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 13 February 2014 20:05 > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: 28 January 2014 09:47 > > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 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@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. > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > >