Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols
draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Vijay Gurbani on 8-June-2011 raises one
  editorial comment:
 
  There are references in the Abstract, which could probably
  be removed and replaced in the body of the draft.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the namespace registry of IANA Maintained XML documents
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: ietf-ipfix-psamp
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipfix-psamp
Template: None
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Yang Module Names registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xml

a new registration will be added as follows:

name: ietf-ipfix-psamp
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipfix-psamp
prefix: ipfix
module: [ no entry ]
reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required upon
approval of the document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Configuration Data Model for IPFIX and PSAMP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Configuration Data Model for IPFIX and PSAMP'
  as a Proposed Standard

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


This document specifies a data model for configuring and monitoring
Selection Processes, Caches, Exporting Processes, and Collecting
Processes of IPFIX and PSAMP compliant Monitoring Devices using the
NETCONF protocol [RFC4741].  The data model is defined using UML
(Unified Modeling Language) class diagrams and formally specified
using YANG [RFC6020].  The configuration data is encoded in
Extensible Markup Language (XML).



The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write-up for draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09
====================================================

(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 during
WG last call. Since it contains a YANG module, a YANG doctor review was
organized for this draft by the NETMOD WG. Several comments were made and
have been addressed when updating the document after the reviews.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.

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

(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 document shepherd checked for ID nits. There are none.

(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].

References are arranged correctly.

(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?

The document defines actions for IANA in an appropriate way.

(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?

The document contains a YANG module in section 6 and several XML
configuration modules in section 7. All have been validated.

(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 document specifies a data model for configuring and monitoring
Selection Processes, Caches, Exporting Processes, and Collecting
Processes of IPFIX and PSAMP compliant Monitoring Devices using the
NETCONF protocol [RFC4741]. The data model is defined using UML
(Unified Modeling Language) class diagrams and formally specified
using YANG [RFC6020]. The configuration data is encoded in
Extensible Markup Language (XML).

Working Group Summary

The mediation framework was added to the IPIFX charter in 2008.
The document was discussed at all meetings since then and had
several revisions. There was nothing special about this document.

Document Quality

The document underwent a WG last call in the IPFIX WG and a YANG
doctor review organized by the NETMOG WG. This way, a high document
quality has been achieved already.

Personnel

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