Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-04.txt

Brian, All,

There's a disconnect between RFC 5610 and IANA's IPFIX registry which 
affects ie-doctors:

Section 3.7 of RFC 5610 defines IE units and states, "new types may be 
added on a First Come First Served [RFC5226 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>] basis."

Cection 4.4. of IE-doctors confirms: "Note that the Units subregistry is 
maintained on a First Come, First Served basis."

However IANA's registry states that Expert Review is required. See 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml#ipfix-information-element-units


I suggest that Expert Review is more correct, since FCFS has no review. 
 From RFC 5226:

             There is no substantive
             review of the request, other than to ensure that it is
             well-formed and doesn't duplicate an existing assignment.


Currently anyone could request any new units, and IANA would have to 
honour the request even if it was stupid or irrelevant.
Whereas with Expert Review, stupid requests could be rejected since 
"approval by a Designated Expert is required."


Regarding Expert Review, RFC 5226 says:

             The required documentation and review
             criteria for use by the Designated Expert should be provided
             when defining the registry.  For example, see Sections 6 and
             7.2 in [RFC3748].


Currently the "IPFIX Information Elements" and "IPFIX Information 
Element Units" require Expert Review without defining any documentation 
or review criteria.

We should address that, eg, "Experts must double check the 
...whatever... with already defined label types for completeness, 
accuracy, relevance, and redundancy."

P.

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