[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Request for publishing draft-ietf-psamp-framework-10 as informational RFC
The PSAMP WG has finished work on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-10
titled 'A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting'. I request
its publication as informational RFC.
Below please find the write-up for this I-D. The I-D was already
completed in January but I wanted to wait for the second PSAMP draft
(draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-07) in order to now submit both drafts
at the same time to the IESG.
Juergen Quittek email@example.com Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de
Document Title: A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting
Document reference: draft-ietf-psamp-framework-10
1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
to forward to the IESG for publication?
1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
An adequate review by key WG members was performed.
I do not have concerns about depth and breadth of the reviews.
1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns in the write-up.
I do not have 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 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 summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email to the Responsible Area Director.
1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Yes, but the check was done in January when the document was submitted.
Since then ID nits changed. The document needs minor changes for
reflecting these changes.
1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)
The references are split into normative and informative.
The normative references include IPFIX and PSAMP WG drafts.
The dependence to the IPFIX drafts is necessary since the IPFIX
protocol was chosen as basis for the PSAMP protocol. The PSAMP WG
documents reference each other. This implies that all of them will
be published at once when the last one is ready.
1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following
It is neither a Standards Track nor a BCP document.
But anyway, here is the write-up.
The 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
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.
The document was thoroughly reviewed by the PSAMP WG.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.