[IPFIX] IPFIX document status
Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear all,
I went through the following process for me. So let me share with the group.
draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO], [IE-DOCTORS],
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL]
Status: passed the IESG, will be in the RFC-EDITOR soon
draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-07
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis]
Informative Reference:
Status: one DISCUSS, waiting for rfc5102bis to go through the IESG
draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
Normative Reference: [RFC5102bis]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
Status: ready for WGLC
draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-07
Normative Reference: [RFC5101bis], [IE-DOCTORS]
Informative Reference: [IPFX-MED-PROTO]
Status: ready for AD review
draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-12
Normative Reference:
Informative Reference:
Status: waiting for the next version to pass the AD review
Conclusions:
1. [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], [IPFIX-A9N], and [IE-DOCTORS] have
normative references to each others.
So they will have to be published together.
Out of these four, RFC5101 is the bottleneck. So WGLC should start soon
2. While [IPFX-MED-PROTO] is only an informative reference for some
other documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it
could referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]
3. [IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] doesn't have any reference dependencies. While
[IPFIX-FLOW-SEL] is only informative a reference for some other
documents, it would be great to progress this draft so that it could
referred to in [RFC5101bis], [RFC5102bis], and [IPFIX-A9N]
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix