Re: [IPFIX] proposal for IPFIX charter update

Hi Brian,

On 11.10.11 11:04, "Brian Trammell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi, Juergen,
>
>Two quick comments inline
>
>Cheers, Brian
>
>On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Quittek wrote:
>
>> Hi Benoit and Brian,
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments.
>> Here comes another update.
>> 
>>    Juergen
>> 
>> =================
>> 
>> IP Flow Information Export (ipfix)
>> 
>> Description of Working Group
>> 
>> The IPFIX working group has specified the information model (to describe
>> IP flows) and the IPFIX protocol (to transfer IP flow data from IPFIX
>> exporters to collectors). Several implementers have already built
>> applications using the IPFIX protocol. As a result of a series of IPFIX
>> interoperability testing events the WG has produced guidelines for IPFIX
>> implementation and testing as well as recommendations for handling
>> special cases such as bidirectional flow reporting and reducing
>> redundancy in flow records.
>> 
>> The IPFIX WG has developed a mediation framework, that defines IPFIX
>> mediators for processing flow records for various purposes including
>> aggregation, anonymization, etc. For configuring IPFIX devices, a YANG
>> module has been developed.
>> 
>> 1. Having a solid standardized base for IPFIX deployment and operation
>> and several existing implementations, the IPFIX WG will revisit the
>> IPFIX protocol specifications (RFC 5101) and the IPFIX information
>> element specification (RFC 5102) in order to advance them to draft
>> standard.
>
>From a suggestion by Dan 13 Sep, and in view of the fact that
>draft-housley-two-maturity-levels was approved by the IESG on 8 Sep and
>is in the RFC Editor queue, this should read
>
>"in order to advance them to the next stage on the standards track."

Yes. Thanks.
And I will also fix the typo you found.

    Juergen


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