Re: [IPFIX] New Version Notification for draft-claise-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-00.txt
Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Brian, > Hi, Benoit, > > Two minor personal changes: > > 1. Ensure that my name is spelled correctly everywhere (found at least one "Trammel" in the references, 5103) Sorry about that. Done. > > 2. My address is now: > > Brian Trammell > Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich > Gloriastrasse 35 > 8092 Zurich > Switzerland > > Phone: +41 44 632 70 13 > EMail: [email protected] > > Otherwise, agree that all presently filed errata are addressed. Done. > > See my other message to you re: 3490. > > For 1305, replace with 5905 but note that we use the 64-bit "timestamp" format, as opposed to either the 32- or 128-bit formats. (May want to note that this will require the data type to be updated before 2038) Currently in discussion with Stewart Bryant. > > Additionally, I believe that a resolution to the template lifetime mechanism for UDP is missing, and given that the present specification is questionably interoperable, that such certain strategies for resolution would be within scope of 5101bis. This would be more or less my suggested variant of "Solution 3" in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg06047.html: 5655-style template management everywhere with infinite timeout, with an explicit note that doing this on UDP is fraught with peril. Let me think some more about this one. Regards, Benoit. > > Not sure what the right _administrative_ way to do this would be though: do we need to file a technical errata on 5101 that we can then address in 5101bis? > > Best regards, > > Brian > > On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Here is a new draft, to advance RFC 5101 to the next stage of standardization on the standards track, as foreseen by the future charter. >> >> DONE: >> Errata ID: 1655 (technical) >> Errata ID: 2791 (technical) >> Errata ID: 2814 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 1818 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2792 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2888 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2889 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2890 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2891 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2892 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2903 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2761 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2762 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2763 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2764 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2852 (editorial) >> Errata ID: 2857 (editorial) >> >> Section 8: "a new sampling rate" has been removed from the list of >> examples that requires a new Template. >> >> If the measurement parameters change such that a new Template is >> required, the Template MUST be withdrawn (using a Template Withdraw >> Message and a new Template definition) or an unused Template ID MUST >> be used. Examples of the measurement changes are: a new sampling >> rate, a new Flow expiration process, a new filtering definition, etc. >> >> Updated the references >> >> Updated the "Document overview" section. >> >> Template and UDP: included the proposal at >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg06051.html >> >> >> TO DO: >> "time first flow dropped" and "time last flow dropped" inconsistency. See the discussion on the list. >> Replace the RFC5102 by RFC5102bis, when the draft will be posted. >> Replace the RFC5815 by RFC5815bis, when the draft will be posted. >> NTP RFC 1305 is obsoleted by RFC5905. Check if the format is the similar before updating the reference. >> IDNA RFC 3490 is obsoleted by RFC5890 and RFC5891. Double-check >> >> Did I miss anything, which is within the boundary of what we can change for the next level of standardization? >> >> For your convenience, a diff between RFC5101 and this draft is included. >> >> Regards, Benoit. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-claise-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-00.txt >> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:34:41 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected] >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-claise-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-claise-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information >> Creation date: 2011-09-20 >> WG ID: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 66 >> >> Abstract: >> This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) >> protocol that serves for transmitting IP Traffic Flow information >> over the network. In order to transmit IP Traffic Flow information >> from an Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a >> common representation of flow data and a standard means of >> communicating them is required. This document describes how the >> IPFIX Data and Template Records are carried over a number of >> transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX >> Collecting Process. This document obsoletes RFC 5101. >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> <rfcdiff.pyht.htm> _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix