[IPFIX] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear IPFIXers, In this revision I've added a new section discussing why a "general default value" isn't possible and noted that the ability to indicate Unobserved Fields provides a side benefit of allowing the Metering Process to indicate that it has begun to monitor a new flow but does not yet have anything to export. Also the usual minor clarifications and error corrections. I've received a lot of positive feedback about the need for this mechanism in IPFIX. P. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:19:06 -0700 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Paul Aitken and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields Revision: 01 Title: Reporting Unobserved Fields in IPFIX Creation date: 2012-07-16 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01 Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01 Abstract: The IPFIX protocol is designed to export information about observations, and lacks a method for reporting that observations are unavailable. This document discusses several methods for reporting when fields are unavailable, reviews the advantages and disadvantage of each, and recommends methods which should be used. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix