From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 04:21:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAM-000394-Gj; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAL-00038n-Ox; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:49 -0400 Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAH-0003O7-0X; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:49 -0400 Received: from localhost (kobe.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.60]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D93313CF86; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:21:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:19:04 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Ron Bonica , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.5 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8c5db863102a3ada84e0cd52a81a79e Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08 as proposed standard RFC X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dan, The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08 titled 'A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting'. I request its publication as proposed standard RFC. Below please find the write-up for this I-D. Thanks, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@netlab.nec.de 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: Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08 (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. (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 one PSAMP WG documents that is 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 that describes the IANA actions required by the document. (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 the export of packet information from a PSAMP Exporting Process to a PSAMP Collecting Process. For export of packet information the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol is used, as both the IPFIX and PSAMP architecture match very well and the means provided by the IPFIX protocol are sufficient. The document specifies in detail how the IPFIX protocol is used for PSAMP export of packet information. Working Group Summary This document was a regular WG document. There is strong consensus in the working group that this protocol 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 PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 04:22:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAM-00038z-CU; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAK-00038g-FJ; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAF-0003O2-ML; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (kobe.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.60]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F6813CF81; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:07:45 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Ron Bonica , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Message-ID: <01FFCBC486EC0BC7B2D24B6D@753F3B888A9969457862729D> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.5 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ec7c6dab5a62df223002ae71b5179d41 Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12 as informational RFC X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org 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 quittek@netlab.nec.de 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 psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 04:22:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAM-00038z-CU; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAK-00038g-FJ; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAF-0003O2-ML; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (kobe.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.60]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F6813CF81; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:07:45 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Ron Bonica , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Message-ID: <01FFCBC486EC0BC7B2D24B6D@753F3B888A9969457862729D> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.5 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ec7c6dab5a62df223002ae71b5179d41 Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-framework-12 as informational RFC X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org 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 quittek@netlab.nec.de 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 PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 04:22:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAM-00038u-80; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAK-00038a-7V; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAG-0003O3-68; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (kobe.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.60]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3C213CF82; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:21:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:13:49 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Ron Bonica , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Message-ID: <168D96DC3FEA52E7E15A6DE3@753F3B888A9969457862729D> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.5 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowes 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 fd Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ded6070f7eed56e10c4f4d0d5043d9c7 Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 as proposed standard RFC X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dan, The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 titled 'Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection'. I request its publication as proposed standard RFC. This is the second request for publishing this document. The first one was made for version -07 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 quittek@netlab.nec.de 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: Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 (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. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise ior 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 PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp From psamp-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 02 04:22:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAM-00038u-80; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAK-00038a-7V; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5HAG-0003O3-68; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:21:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (kobe.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.60]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3C213CF82; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:21:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:13:49 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Ron Bonica , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Message-ID: <168D96DC3FEA52E7E15A6DE3@753F3B888A9969457862729D> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.5 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowendicated 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. There are no normative references that are not already 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 for 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 revid Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ded6070f7eed56e10c4f4d0d5043d9c7 Cc: psamp@ietf.org Subject: [PSAMP] Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 as proposed standard RFC X-BeenThere: psamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This mailing list is used for discussion within the IETF packet sampling \(PSAMP\) WG" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: psamp-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dan, The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 titled 'Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection'. I request its publication as proposed standard RFC. This is the second request for publishing this document. The first one was made for version -07 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 quittek@netlab.nec.de 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: Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10 (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. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise iew, on what date was the request posted? Technical Summary This document describes Sampling and Filtering techniques for IP packet selection. It provides a categorization of schemes and defines what parameters are needed to describe the most common selection schemes. Furthermore it shows how techniques can be combined to build more elaborate packet Selectors. The document provides the basis for the definition of information models for configuring selection techniques in Measurement Processes and for reporting the technique in use to a Collector. Working Group Summary This document has been a regular WG document. There is strong consensus in the working group that this document describes an appropriate sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection. 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 PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp ndicated 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. There are no normative references that are not already 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 for 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 describes Sampling and Filtering techniques for IP packet selection. It provides a categorization of schemes and defines what parameters are needed to describe the most common selection schemes. Furthermore it shows how techniques can be combined to build more elaborate packet Selectors. The document provides the basis for the definition of information models for configuring selection techniques in Measurement Processes and for reporting the technique in use to a Collector. Working Group Summary This document has been a regular WG document. There is strong consensus in the working group that this document describes an appropriate sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection. 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 PSAMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp