Re: [IPFIX] Link-layer IEs draft submitted to IESG

Dear all,

I reviewed the document, and this document is in good shape.
Therefore, its state is now "Last Call Requested"

Regards, Benoit
>
> Hi all:
>
> Here's the write-up for our link-layer IEs draft, which I've just 
> submitted.
>
> Cheers, Nevil
>
> Write-up for:
>   draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06
>   Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic Measurement
>
> === 1. Summary ===
>
> Document shepherd: Nevil Brownlee
> Responsible Area Director: Benoit Claise
>
> This document describes Information Elements (IEs) related to data
> link layer.  They are used by the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
> protocol for encoding measured data link layer traffic information.
>
> The document is intended to be a Proposed Standard.  It describes,
> in detail, a set of Information Elements describing link-layer
> objects.  These will be particularly to service providers who use
> Wide-Area Ethernet or Virtual Ethernet technologies.
>
> === 2. Review and Consensus ===
>
> This draft's -00 version was published in July 2012. Two of its
> authors were from a large Japanese provider who needed to monitor and
> report on link-layer performance.  Since then it has received ongoing
> low-activity-level discussion on the IPFIX list.  It has also been
> discussed at each IETF meeting since then; alas, the WG has always
> considered this as low-priority work.
>
> Its WGLC was run in October 2012; we realised at that point that we
> needed someone from IEEE 802.1 to check that our Ethernet IEs were
> correct in their descriptions of the IEEE-defined technologies.
> Pat Thaler, IEEE liaison for IETF, has helped develop this document
> since then, she confirms that the IEEE-related IEs are correct in
> their descriptions.
>
> It has been carefully reviewed by Paul Aitken and Brian Trammell,
> both pointed out issues; these have been addressed in successive
> versions.
>
> Overall I believe that there is clear consensus within the WG for
> this draft.
>
> === 3. Intellectual Property ===
>
> No IPR disclosures have been made directly on this draft, IPR
> on it has not been discussed in the WG.
>
> Two of the authors have stated that their direct, personal
> knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been
> disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.
> The third author, Shingo Kashima, has not responded to my email
> requests for this confirmation.
>
> === 4. Other Points ===
>
> This document has no downward references.
>
> Its IANA Considerations clearly state what IANA is being asked
> to do, i.e. add 25 new IPFIX Information Elements to the
> IPFIX Information Element Registry.  These have been discussed
> at IETF meetings with all four of the IE-Doctors present.
>
> It also describes two existing IEs: 312, dataLinkFrameSize and
> 315, dataLinkFrameSection.  These are already in the Information
> Element Registry - they're listed here so that all the link-layer
> IEs are described in a single RFC.
>
> The ID-nits checker has a few other complaints; the RFC Editor will
> fix those.
>
> Overall, I believe that this draft is ready for publication as
> an RFC.
>

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