Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12 as informational RFC

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:07:45 +0200

Hi Dan,

The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12
titled 'A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting'.
I request its publication as informational RFC.

This is the second request for publishing this document.
The first one was made for version -10 in July 2005.
Since then the document has been updated and kept in synch
with related IPFIX and PSAMP WG documents.  Also the
boilerplates have been updated and remaining I-D nits have
been fixed in the current version that was posted last week.

Below please find the write-up for this I-D.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 4342-115
NEC Europe Limited,    Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 4342-155
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK
Registered in England 2832014

Document title: A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting
Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes
it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

An adequate review by key WG members was performed. The document shepherd
has no concerns about depth and breadth of the reviews.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

There are no such concerns.

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

There is a solid WG consensus on the content of the draft.
However, it was discussed controversially whether this document
should become an informational RFC or a standards track RFC.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are split into two sections.
The normative references include IPFIX and PSAMP WG documents.
The dependence to the IPFIX drafts is necessary since the IPFIX
protocol was chosen as basis for the PSAMP protocol.
All IPFIX WG documents that are referenced as normative are already
in the RFC Editor queue.  For two PSAMP WG documents that are referenced
as normative publication as RFC has already been requested. The remaining
PSAMP WG document that is referenced as normative (ietf-psamp-info-model)
in still progressing.  Currently, the WG is focused on completing this
document.
All normative references that are not PSAMP or IPFIX WG documents
have already been published as RFC.
There are no downward references.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There is a section on IANA considerations and it correctly states that
this document has no actions fFrom [email-masked] Mon Jul 02 04:22:00 2007
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:07:45 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>,
	Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12 as
	informational RFC

Hi Dan,

The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12
titled 'A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting'.
I request its publication as informational RFC.

This is the second request for publishing this document.
The first one was made for version -10 in July 2005.
Since then the document has been updated and kept in synch
with related IPFIX and PSAMP WG documents.  Also the
boilerplates have been updated and remaining I-D nits have
been fixed in the current version that was posted last week.

Below please find the write-up for this I-D.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 4342-115
NEC Europe Limited,    Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 4342-155
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL, UK
Registered in England 2832014

Document title: A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting
Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed this version of the document and believes
it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

An adequate review by key WG members was performed. The document shepherd
has no concerns about depth and breadth of the reviews.

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concernor IANA.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
             example, was there controversy about particular points or
             were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
             rough?

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             review, on what date was the request posted?

Technical Summary

This document specifies a framework for the PSAMP (Packet
SAMPling) protocol.  The functions of this protocol are to select
packets from a stream according to a set of standardized
selectors, to form a stream of reports on the selected packets,
and to export the reports to a collector.  This framework details
the components of this architecture, then describes some generic
requirements, motivated by the dual aims of ubiquitous deployment
and utility of the reports for applications.  Detailed
requirements for selection, reporting and exporting are
described, along with configuration requirements of the PSAMP
functions.

Working Group Summary

This  document was a regular WG document.  There is strong consensus
in the working group that this framework is an appropriate solution.

Document Quality

There are no known implementations yet, but two vendors
and academic research institutes announced implementations.
The document is fully supported by the WG and there has no
concerns been raised that there are better alternatives or
that the document is not useful.

_______________________________________________
PSAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp