Dear Mehmet,
Speaking as Document Shepherd
for draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model, I'd like to thank you
very much for your review.
There are just a few items that I'd like to comment on:
- RFC 6728 authors: We have been in contact with Benoit Claise (who is
one of the three RFC 6728 authors) throughout the process of creating the
draft, and at Benoit's behest we contacted the other two authors a year ago
(during IETF 103) to inform them of the work and to solicit opinions on the
draft and its proposed models. We didn't hear back from them. I expect we'd
be happy to add them as co-authors (if this was deemed appropriate) and
would certainly be happy to acknowledge them.
- Procedural questions: We are discussing these with the AD.
- YANG doctors' review: We very much look forward to seeing the results
of this review.
Cheers,
William Lupton
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Mehmet Ersue via Datatracker
wrote:
>
> Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.
>
> Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> I reviewed the document "YANG Data Models for the IP Flow Information
> Export
> (IPFIX) Protocol, Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol, and Bulk Data Export
> (draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02) as part of the
> Operational
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed
> by
> the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these
> comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)
> Intended status: Standards Track
> Current IESG state: I-D Exists
>
> Summary:
> The document aims to replace the YANG model for packet sampling (PSAMP) and
> bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol originally defined
> in
> standard track RFC 6728 (Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow
> Information
> Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols). The YANG data model
> in
> the document also aims to be conform with the Network Management Datastore
> Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. FYI: The YANG model is currently
> in
> review by Martin Bjorklund from YANG modeling perspective.
>
> The document further aims to decouple the PSAMP collecting process and the
> IPFIX exporting process as well as defining an exporting process which
> does not
> require SCTP support. The document tries to enable the export frequency to
> be
> controlled by the exporting process, support of large IPFIX mediation
> functions, and flexible referencing of interfaces. The new functionality
> described above and the necessary restructuring of the model in RFC 6728
> might
> become useful if done properly as an extension to RFC 6728.
>
> However based on missing IPFIX and PSAMP expertise, unfortunately I'm not
> able
> to give a solid statement on to whether the document is capable to replace
> the
> standard track RFC 6728. Moreover the new functionality and changes to the
> original model require thorough and in-depth review by IPFIX and PSAMP
> experts.
>
> Also as the document is largely based on RFC 6728, introducing the authors
> of
> RFC 6728 as co-authors and involving them for review would very useful. As
> a
> minimum they need to be involved as reviewers and mentioned in the
> Acknowledgments section.
>
> The document is proposed to publish as an AD sponsored draft, which is not
> an
> issue per se. It is also not forbidden but very unusual that an AD
> sponsored
> draft is proposed to replace a standard track RFC. I would be highly
> interested
> to know why this path has been chosen.
>
> However I believe it is a substantial issue that this draft has not been
> discussed and supported in any IETF maillist until today. There was only a
> short presentation in OPSAWG WG session one year ago without any record of
> support. The authors are not known at IETF and have not written any other
> than
> the current draft. The authors have most likely BBF background.
>
> As IPFIX and PSAMP WGs have already concluded, I would like to recommend
> _urgently_ to introduce the draft to OPSAWG maillist and ask for support.
> It is
> IMO essentially important that the document gets discussed and reviewed by
> IPFIX and PSAMP people available in OPSAWG and by the authors of RFC 6728
> before publication. It also needs to be clarified whether the draft has
> been
> already or is going to be implemented.
>
> In case there is no support in OPSAWG WG for this draft to replace the
> standard
> track RFC 6728 I believe it would be appropriate to publish it as an "AD
> sponsored Experimental RFC". It can still become a standard track RFC after
> getting implementation reports and appropriate community feedback on its
> usage.
>
> Sorry for not being the right expert reviewer for the draft content.
> Therefore
> I've set the review result to "Partially Completed - extra reviewer
