Subject: [PSAMP] write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:25:13 +0200

Dear Dan and dear IESG Secretary,

Below please find the write up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-08.
I think the draft is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

Best regards,

    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

==========================================================================

Write-up for draft-ietf-psamp-info-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 reviewed it personally
and believes that this version 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?

The document had multiple individual reviews from key WG members.
The shepherd has no concern about the depth or 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?

The document shepherd sees no need for an additional particular review.
The contained XML document is fully in line with the corresponding
XML document of the IPFIX information model. It has been validated by
the document shepherd.

   (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 is no such concern.

   (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 strong consensus in the PSAMP WG as well as in the IPFIX WG
to publish this version of the document. There are no particular issues
in the document without strong consensus of both WGs.

   (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.)

There was no appeal.

   (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?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The WG shepherd checked for ID nits and validated the contained XML
document.  Also boilerplates have been checked.

   (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].

One reference has been outdated since the document was submitted:
RFC 2434 has recently been obsoleted by RFC 5226. This should be fixed
after IETF last call. More references may be obsoleted by then.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations have been checked.

   (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?

Yes. The contained XML document was validated using Sun's
Multi-Schema XML Validator (MSV)

   (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

   This memo defines an information model for the Packet Sampling
   (PSAMP) protocol.  It is used by the PSAMP protocol for encoding
   sampled packet data and information related to the Sampling process.
   As the PSAMP protocol is based on the IPFIX protocol, this
   information model is an extension to the IPFIX information model.

Working Group Summary

   There is consensus in the WG to publish these documents.

Document Quality

   Several of the Information Elements defined in this document have
   already been implemented by academic as well as industrial institutions.
   But not all of them have been implemented and tested, yet.

Personnel

   Juergen Quittek is shepherding this document. Dan Romascanu is the
   responsible Area director.

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