Re: [IPFIX] proposal for IPFIX charter update -> Internet Standard

Juergen, Nevil, Dan,

In light of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08, which 
is in the RFC-editor queue, should we shoot for RFC5101bis and 
RFC5102bis as Internet Standard.
Maybe a sentence in the charter such as. If 
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08 is published in time for the WG 
milestones, the revised RFC5101 and RFC5102 should target Internet 
Standard status"

Regards, Benoit.
> Dear all,
>
> At our session in Quebec we discussed candidates
> for new IPFIX work items. Based on this discussion,
> Nevil and I drafted an update of our charter that
> you can find below.
>
> Please have a look at it and send us your comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
>      Juergen
>
>
> IP Flow Information Export (ipfix)
>
>
> Description of Working Group
>
>
> The IPFIX working group has specified the information model (to describe
> IP flows) and the IPFIX protocol (to transfer IP flow data from IPFIX
> exporters to collectors). Several implementers have already built
> applications using the IPFIX protocol. As a result of a series of IPFIX
> interoperability testing events the WG has produced guidelines for IPFIX
> implementation and testing as well as recommendations for handling
> special cases such as bidirectional flow reporting and reducing
> redundancy in flow records.
>
> The IPFIX WG has developed a mediation framework, that defines IPFIX
> mediators for processing flow records for various purposes including
> aggregation, anonymization, etc. For configuring IPFIX devices, a YANG
> module has been developed.
>
> 1. Having a solid standardized base for IPFIX deployment and operation
> and several exiting implementations, the IPFIX WG will revisit the IPFIX
> protocol specifications (RFC 5101) and the IPFIX information element
> specification (RFC 5102) in order to advance them to draft standard.
>
> 2. For giving guidelines to developers of new IPFIX information
> elements and for better defining the process of registering new
> information elements at IANA the IPFIX WG will create an information
> element developers guideline document.
>
> 3. The export of IPFIX flow records from IPFIX mediators introduces a
> set of potential issues at the protocol level, such as the loss of
> information on the original exporter, loss of base time information,
> loss of original options template information, etc. The IPFIX WG will
> define common ways to deal with these issues, by specifying guidelines
> for the use of the IPFIX protocol on IPFIX mediators.
>
> 4. For supporting the aggregation of flow records at IPFIX mediators
> the IPFIX WG will define how to export aggregated flow information using
> IPFIX. An aggregated flow is essentially an IPFIX flow representing
> packets from multiple original Flows sharing some set of common properties.
>
> 5. The IPFIX WG will investigate the use of the IPFIX protocol for
> exporting
> MIB objects, avoiding the need to define new IPFIX information elements
> for existing management information base objects that are already fully
> specified. This method requires the specification of new template set
> and options template sets to allow the export of MIB objects along
> with IPFIX information elements.
>
> 6. The IPFIX MIB module (RFC 5815) defined a way to register packet
> selector functions at IANA. The WG agreed that another method would
> be preferable that requires a minor change of RFC 5815. The IPFIX WG
> will produce a new version of RFC 5815 with small modifications of
> the IANA actions and DESCRIPTION clauses in the the MIB modules.
>
> Oct 2011    Publish draft on guidelines for IE doctors
> Oct 2011    Publish draft on IPFIX use at mediators
> Oct 2011    Publish draft on intermediate aggregation
> Oct 2011    Publish draft on exporting MIB objects
> Oct 2011    Publish draft on data link IEs
> Dec 2011    Publish draft revising RFC 5101
> Dec 2011    Publish draft revising RFC 5102
>
> Apr 2012    Submit guidelines for IE doctors for publication as
> Informational BCP RFC
> Apr 2012    Submit draft on IPFIX use at mediators for publication as
> Standards track RFC
> Apr 2012    Submit draft on intermediate aggregation for publication as
> Standards track RFC
> Apr 2012    Submit draft on data link IEs for publication as Standards
> track RFC
> Apr 2012    Submit draft revising RFC 5101 for publication as Standards
> track RFC
> Apr 2012    Submit draft revising RFC 5102 for publication as Standards
> track RFC
> Sep 2012    Submit draft on exporting MIB objects for publication as
> Standards track RFC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix