[IPFIX] rfc5103 lite

While reviewing the ie-doctors draft part of "4.10.  Avoiding Bad Ideas 
in Information Element Design" caught my attention.

"Specific examples of
    such Information Elements include initiatorOctets and responderOctets
    (which duplicate octetDeltaCount and its reverse per [RFC5103]) and
    initiatorPackets and responderPackets (the same, for
    packetDeltaCount)."

I agree that the initiatorOctets and initiatorPackets are redundant.  I 
also agree that in the context of IPFIX that responderOctets and 
responderPackets are made redundant by RFC 5103.  However, I think there 
is a valid use for the responderOctets and responderPackets IEs.

I see a lot of interest in implementing biflows, but many exporters are 
still exporting NetFlow v9 (RFC 3954).  The IEs for responderOctets and 
responderPackets allow a limited version of 5103 to be exported until 
the exporter can support IPFIX.  I'm not sure we want to paint these two 
IEs with the "bad idea" brush.  Maybe we could add a couple sentences to 
clarify the situation.

Something along the lines of
For 3954 use of responderOctets and responderPackets is OK, but don't 
expect new responder/reverse IEs to be added.  If you need more reverse 
IEs then IPFIX and 5103 should be implemented.

We should also fix initiatorPackets and responderPackets to not have 
"identifier" semantics.

-Andrew

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