headers
Nevil Brownlee | 4 May 2010 07:17
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [IPFIX] IE for Reliability Extension


Hi Sujay:

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back onto IPFIX things.

I see that Juergen sent you an email on 21 April, suggesting that
you simply request IANA to add some new IE definitions to their
IPFIX IE Registry.

Reading your draft now, I agree with Juergen.  The draft simply
says "we need a new information element to say whether or not
the counter fields in the Reliability Statistics and Exporting
Process Statistics Option Templates are valid, or not."

It doesn't seem to me that you need more than the new IE, your
'reliabilityReasonCode.'  However, I'd like to see some discussion
of that on the IPFIX list.  For example, does the name tell us
what it actually means?  Would 'reliabilityCountersValid' be
any better?  Can it be implemented effectively?  Do others agree
that it would be useful?

Concerning the draft itself, I have a few editorial comments:
- MAYBE isn't an RFC 2119, that should be in lower case
- IE 239 is already allocated, the next free number is 277

I'm copying this to the list to see what others think of this.

Cheers, Nevil

sujay gupta wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
sujay gupta | 5 May 2010 05:29
Picon

Re: [IPFIX] IE for Reliability Extension

Thanks Nevil for the feedback.

Yes, I would agree for a more appropriate name change.

Sometime, when I last floated an email asking for responses as to who
has implemented Reliability Optional Template , there was IMO no
response, (??)

On the reason for the new IE, I do not see any disagreement from the list.

Whether it can be resolved without using a new IE is the question, and
I would welcome any proposals in the list.

Best Regards,
-Sujay

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Nevil Brownlee
<n.brownlee <at> auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi Sujay:
>
> Sorry it's taken me a while to get back onto IPFIX things.
>
> I see that Juergen sent you an email on 21 April, suggesting that
> you simply request IANA to add some new IE definitions to their
> IPFIX IE Registry.
>
> Reading your draft now, I agree with Juergen.  The draft simply
> says "we need a new information element to say whether or not
> the counter fields in the Reliability Statistics and Exporting
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nevil Brownlee | 5 May 2010 23:48
Picon
Picon
Favicon

[IPFIX] Research project - looking for input


Hi all:

Scott Bradner asked the WG chairs for help in getting responses
to a research survey aimed at improving the way IETF WGs operate.
If you have some time to spare, please consider responding to their
survey (URL below).

Cheers, Nevil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob <at> harvard.edu>
To: <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:04 AM
Subject: resend - poll request

> working group chairs:
>
> This is the resend of the pointer to the survey that I talked about
> during the WG Chairs lunch in Anaheim �sorry for the delay
>
> Please take a look & if you are comfortable doing so, please send a
> pointer to your WG discussion list
>
> Thanks
>
> Scott
>
> === resend====
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 6 May 2010 10:51
Favicon

[IPFIX] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement

Editors and Chairs,

Please address the issue raised by Sean in his DISCUSS. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sean Turner
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 6:51 AM
To: iesg <at> ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement <at> tools.ietf.org;
ipfix-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org
Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement 

Discuss:
#1) The SECDIR review pointed out that the trust model needs to be
explained.   Atsushi suggested that there were two scenarios and they
should probably go in the follow-on framework document.  If that is the
case, then a normative reference is needed to point from the trust model
text/section to that particular section in the framework document.
However, the -06 of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework does not seem
to include this text.  Is it going to be included or is the trust model
going to be included in problem-statement?

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Christian Vogt | 7 May 2010 20:09
Picon
Favicon

[IPFIX] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-09

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document..........:  draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-09
Reviewer..........:  Christian Vogt
Review date.......:  May 7, 2010
IESG Telechat date:  May 6, 2010

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Informational RFC.

This document identifies scalability problems with modern flow-based
measurement, which are due to increasing traffic volume as well as
increasing measurement requirements complexity.  The document motivates
IPFIX mediation as a solution, and it gives a set of examples where this
solution applies.  The document also analyzes the disadvantages of IPFIX
mediation, which constitute the cost for better scalability.

I believe the document is ready for publication.  The document is easy
to read, concise, and well-structured.

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Atsushi Kobayashi | 10 May 2010 06:18

Re: [IPFIX] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-09


Hi Christian,

Thank you for your reviewing.

Regards, Atsushi

On Fri, 7 May 2010 20:09:56 +0200
Christian Vogt <christian.vogt <at> ericsson.com> wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> 
> Document..........:  draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement-09
> Reviewer..........:  Christian Vogt
> Review date.......:  May 7, 2010
> IESG Telechat date:  May 6, 2010
> 
> 
> Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Informational RFC.
> 
> 
> This document identifies scalability problems with modern flow-based
> measurement, which are due to increasing traffic volume as well as
> increasing measurement requirements complexity.  The document motivates
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Atsushi Kobayashi | 10 May 2010 06:33

Re: [IPFIX] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement


Hi Dan, and Chairs,

The issues are being discussed in another mail.

I am wondering non-technical issue that problem statement 
needs normative reference to framework.

Regards,
Atsushi

On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:51:24 +0200
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com> wrote:

> Editors and Chairs,
> 
> Please address the issue raised by Sean in his DISCUSS. 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Sean Turner
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 6:51 AM
> To: iesg <at> ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement <at> tools.ietf.org;
> ipfix-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 10 May 2010 09:43
Favicon

Re: [IPFIX] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atsushi Kobayashi [mailto:akoba <at> nttv6.net] 

> 
> I am wondering non-technical issue that problem statement 
> needs normative reference to framework.
> 

Can you try to reformulate this, I cannot really understand what you
mean. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Atsushi Kobayashi | 10 May 2010 18:35

Re: [IPFIX] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-statement


Hi Dan, and all,

In IETF last call, the SECDIR review pointed out that the trust model
for mediator needs to be explained. At that time, I explained about my
thought included in framework draft.

In IESG review, Sean pointed out two comments; the current framework
draft is not enough explanation, the problem statement document needs
the normative reference to the framework draft.

With regard to framework document, thanks to Brian great suggestion, I
am preparing next version including trust model in security
consideration section. Please see the following sub-section 9.3.
http://www.nttv6.net/~akoba/draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-07-01.html#anchor24

With regard to including normative reference to framework, I have
one question. By definition, the goal of problem statement is to explain
the issues that should be resolved in a series of documents made
afterward, i.e., framework. It is starting point.
Thus, already the problem statement described the issues about the trust
model. In my opinion, it is enough as problem statement level.

Even so, normative reference is necessary?
Does it need to wait for framework draft?
If framework has normative reference to its protocol, does it need to
wait protocol draft moreover?

I would like to avoid long discussion about it, I will follow your and
IPFIX chairs' opinion.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 11 May 2010 16:31
Favicon

[IPFIX] Errata 1992 and 2030 on RFC 5655

IPFIX WG,

Please provide your recommendation concerning errata #1992 and #2030
relative to RFC 5665. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane