Re: [IPFIX] recent ipfix drafts and argus
Carter Bullard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix,gmane.network.argus |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hey Juergen, I know how the IETF works. As you remember, I was a principal contributor to the meetings that lead to the formation of IPFIX. But all IETF documents have an Acknowledgements and References sections for a reason. When your authors use examples or technology that are well developed in other projects, you should give those projects credit for the work they have done. Carter Carter Bullard CEO/President QoSient, LLC 150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D New York, New York 10022 +1 212 588-9133 Phone +1 212 588-9134 Fax On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Juergen Quittek wrote: > Hi Carter, > > It looks like there is a misconception on your side concerning IETF > publications. You are confusing them with scientific conference and > journal publications. The target of the IETF is not serving the community > with new unpublished ideas, but with standards specifications. Whether > the technologies used for standards have been published before is not of > high relevance. But of high relevance is if they are suited as a > standard. The IETF has even a mechanism where people can claim IPR > related to IETF documents. This is completely independent from the > authorship. > > According to the rules of the IETF, authors of WG documents are assigned > by the WG chairs. Typically these are the same authors that worked on an > individual draft on the same topic before, but not necessarily. And there > is no rule at all at the IETF stating that a person can only be an author, > it he or she had the original idea described in the text. If an RFC is > revised then often the original authors are removed and the ones making > the revision are added. There is not concern about 'originality'. > > All your complaints in this direction are pointless. > > However, what the WG may consider is adding a reference to argus to > draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n. You are welcome to provide text on which concepts > and methods are already well understood and tested from experiences with > argus. > > Juergen > > > On 28.02.12 16:13, "Carter Bullard" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hey Juergen,It is not the responsibility of groups outside of the IETF to >> police IETF working groups >> to ensure that they are doing the right thing. The IETF itself, has a >> responsibility to do >> the right thing when it comes to publishing technical documents. >> >> I am providing input to the WG that draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-3 is not >> original work, the concepts >> have been worked in the communications industry for a very long time, and >> there are open >> public implementations of every concept in the draft. I am also >> providing input to the WG >> that draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-3 appears to be using concepts, and examples >> that are curiously >> specific to actual implementation and publications developed by Argus. >> >> Based on the response from the authors to the mailing list, its clear >> that the authors >> have not done any due diligence to ensure that their draft conforms to >> even the simplest of >> ethics in technical publication. Plagiarism is a very serious problem, >> and the authors >> should know how to protect themselves from such a claim. >> >> I am providing input to the WG that I believe the authors cannot defend >> themselves >> from such a claim with their current draft, and that the WG should >> respond accordingly. >> >> I would hope that the WG will use this input to improve their processes >> and products, >> something that would benefit the entire flow community. >> >> Carter >> >> Carter Bullard >> CEO/President >> QoSient, LLC >> 150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D >> New York, New York 10022 >> >> +1 212 588-9133 Phone >> +1 212 588-9134 Fax >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2012, at 4:25 AM, Juergen Quittek wrote: >> >> >> Hi Carter, >> >> You know the IPFIX WG for long and our process has always been open. >> Aggregation (also referred to as "concentration") was always among >> the requirements to take care of by the IPFIX WG, see, for example, >> RFC 3917 from 2004. >> >> The open IETF process allows anybody to support technical documents >> with solutions, such as ones on IPFIX aggregation. So far, no such >> contribution has been made by argus developers or users. This is a >> pity, but nothing you can blame any active members of the IPFIX WG >> for. If you want to blame someone, then rather blame the argus >> community including yourself. You aware of the IPFIX WG and >> contributions from you or argus users would have been highly >> appreciated. >> >> The IPFIX WG is and will always open for contributions from the >> argus community. If you think that a technical contributions from >> argus or a reference to argus would improve any of our current >> documents, then please contribute to them, as you had already done >> in the past. Please particularly do so if you think the way argus >> solved technical problems is better than what has so far been >> contributed to the IPFIX WG. >> >> >> While your technical contributions will always be welcome, I ask >> you in my role as WG co-chair to stop making harsh statements on >> the mailing list, even though the main effect that you achieve >> with these statements is discrediting yourself. In particular >> I refer to two statements you made: >> >> 1. You accuse authors of draft draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n of plagiarism. >> Your main reason for this was that you stated "I had the same idea >> before" and it's publicly available. I haven't checked if the >> ideas are exactly the same, but this is not the point. It does >> happen that two people independently have the same idea. >> For accusing someone of plagiarism, more evidence is necessary, >> at least if you want to be taken serious. >> >> 2. You claim that authors of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n are lacking >> expertise. Indeed, there are leading experts among the authors >> with high reputation and high expertise in the area of IP >> flow monitoring. Claiming they "don't have a clue" because they >> don't know argus by heart is a statement that may be valid in >> an argus-centric world, but not in the world of the IP flow >> monitoring community. >> >> >> I look forward to your technical contributions for improving the >> Standards we are developing in the IPFIX WG. >> >> Juergen >> WG co-chair >> >> >> On 28.02.12 00:49, "Carter Bullard" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hey Benoit,Well you should pay some attention. You should know if there >> >> is prior art before you start presenting descriptions of technology, and >> >> you should give credit to that prior art. Problem's come up when you >> >> present work, and your descriptions look like the prior art's source >> >> code, and your examples look like that prior arts program output. Maybe >> >> its just a coincidence. >> >> >> >> Argus is free and open source software, and the concepts that you are >> >> presenting in your draft were implemented in argus over 19 years ago, so >> >> I don't think I'm too worried about IP. Its just the arrogance of it all >> >> that is a little bit of a concern. IPFIX isn't doing the community any >> >> favors if its only authors don't have a clue. >> >> >> >> Carter >> >> >> >> Carter Bullard >> >> CEO/President >> >> QoSient, LLC >> >> 150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D >> >> New York, New York 10022 >> >> >> >> +1 212 588-9133 Phone >> >> +1 212 588-9134 Fax >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Carter, >> >> >> >> After trying to abstract the style of your email, which I don't >> >> appreciate, I'm not too sure how to read your email. >> >> Is this an IP claim? Or just "I've been doing this for years, so I >> >> know better"? >> >> >> >> In all cases, that's a nice advertisement for your company... Maybe >> >> it was the point... >> >> >> >> On my side, I certainly don't get my ideas from your products! >> >> The last time I looked up your web site was at the time of RFC3955. >> >> In total in my live, I don't think I spend more than 1/2 h on your >> >> web site. >> >> >> >> And I don't feel like replying to the details of this email, or even >> >> playing the little game of comparing features of your company/my >> >> company. >> >> >> >> Regards, Benoit. >> >> >> >> Gentle people, >> >> I'm generally pretty quiet when it comes to IPFIX and its >> >> efforts. But as the first >> >> person to develop IP flow records in the 1980's, first to >> >> present the idea to the >> >> community in 1992, the first to provide open source flow >> >> technology in 1995, >> >> and the author of the longest lived open source flow system, >> >> argus; I feel that >> >> I have to say something about the recent wave of IPFIX >> >> drafts. >> >> >> >> >> >> The drafts on flow aggregation describe functionality that >> >> the Argus project started >> >> over 20 years ago. The ideas of key modification, conversion >> >> of non-key attributes >> >> to key members, aggregation operators, interval >> >> distribution and the architecture for it, >> >> were all developed in argus a long long time ago. >> >> draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n is basically >> >> describing the functionality of >> >> argus's racluster(), rasplit(), and rabins() programs, >> >> and every example given in the text of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n >> >> can be generated using >> >> argus's rabins(), with only a few gyrations of its >> >> command-line, today. >> >> >> >> >> >> I personally would expect that if the IETF was going to >> >> describe something that is >> >> "Standards Track", that there would be dozen's of >> >> implementations of this kind of >> >> technology available, and that the WG is condensing years of >> >> experience to >> >> arrive at a "Standards Track", but, this is not the case. >> >> There is only one current >> >> implementation of the complete capabilities of the features >> >> of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n >> >> that I am aware of, and that is in argus. >> >> >> >> >> >> Taking just one of the technical descriptions in the >> >> draft, "interval distribution", I >> >> am not aware of any description of this issue, >> >> or implementation of this type >> >> of technology in the literature, outside of argus. No Google >> >> search results for "flow >> >> interval distribution". In Argus we call it flow splitting. >> >> The first line from a >> >> Google search for "argus flow splitting" return: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Scholarly >> >> articles for argus flow splitting >> >> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=argus+flow+splitting&hl=en&as_sdt=0&a >> >> s_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=-8NLT_6lKcnb0QHVs6z7DQ&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Š >> >> and prediction of flow statistics from >> >> sampled packet Š >> >> <http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Fhl% >> >> 3Den%26q%3Dhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm%253Fid%253D637225%26sa%3DX%26sci >> >> sig%3DAAGBfm1Qq9_hOFJINho1051rzZ6qOD5wuA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&sa=X&ei=-8N >> >> LT_6lKcnb0QHVs6z7DQ&ved=0CBsQgAMoADAA&q=argus+flow+splitting&usg=AFQjCNFuM >> >> uC_b45uErbgoPHPab61egoZ3g> - Duffield - >> >> Cited by 217 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not saying that Nick knows much about argus's support for >> >> flow splitting, but >> >> its still pretty scary that the first hit is from a paper >> >> that is used in IPFIX documents. >> >> One would have to assume that the IPFIX community should be >> >> aware. >> >> >> >> >> >> My problem is that most of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n is prior >> >> work that is not widely >> >> implemented, some of the features are still unique to argus. >> >> While IETF support >> >> of technology is a good thing, descriptions of technology >> >> without reference >> >> is a difficult thing to interpret. Is the IPFIX WG >> >> describing what they think is new >> >> technology? Does the IPFIX WG think that many companies have >> >> implemented >> >> this type of technology, and now its time to standardize it ? >> >> Well, I'm not aware >> >> of any implementation, open or closed, that does the complete >> >> set of what the >> >> draft is recommending, other than argus. So I don't think >> >> its new, nor widely >> >> implemented. I would say its a form of technology >> >> plagiarism. >> >> >> >> >> >> IPFIX is considering adding non-IP flows to their >> >> definitions. Argus is the only available >> >> flow technology that has significant non-IP flow data models >> >> and support. argus-1.2 had >> >> flow generation, transport, analytics and storage of non-IP >> >> flows 20 years ago, with its >> >> support for bi-directional ethernet, apple-talk and ARP >> >> transaction tracking and reporting. >> >> In the last 10 years, argus has added MPLS, VLAN, ISO >> >> addresses, and Infiniband flow >> >> models. Not attributes, but true flow key elements. This >> >> work is non-trivial. >> >> >> >> >> >> The concept that the WG would consider dropping the IP from >> >> IPFIX and think that is >> >> all that is needed, is really so completely wrong, that its >> >> laughable, and a dis-service >> >> to those that have done the hard work to bring >> >> situational awareness and analytics >> >> to non-IP traffic. The same applies to bi-directional >> >> flows, but that is another story. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would love to think that IPFIX could focus back on flow >> >> information exchange. >> >> Multicast, non-template based connectionless transport >> >> strategies, say over UDT >> >> as an example, rather than getting into areas for which the >> >> WG is unprepared to >> >> do even a reasonable job, without resorting to dubious >> >> techniques. >> >> >> >> >> >> Just a few comments, I hope that anyone finds it useful. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Carter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Carter Bullard >> >> CEO/President >> >> QoSient, LLC >> >> 150 E. 57th Street Suite 12D >> >> New York, New York 10022 >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 212 588-9133 Phone >> >> +1 212 588-9134 Fax >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> IPFIX mailing list >> >> [email protected]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> IPFIX mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
smime.p7s
(application/pkcs7-signature, 4.3 KB) - not displayed