Re: [IPFIX] obsoleting obsoletion in 5102-bis and IE-DOCTORS
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian,
No objection.
Consider VRRP: although VRRP v2 (RFC 3768) was obsoleted by VRRP v3 (RFC
5798), v2 is still in common use.
We should expect the same for IPFIX IEs: obsolete IEs may continue in
use for many years because people are unaware, unable, or simply
unwilling to update.
Can IANA record the obsolescence date individually for each field?
Reviewing draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03,
The use of deprecated Information Elements SHOULD result
in a log entry or human-readable warning at the Exporting and
Collecting Processes.
That's just not possible. How can an existing EP know that its IEs have
been deprecated? - Unless it's able to reference IANA, and method (1) of
yesterday's discussion is in use.
However, that's not desirable since it allows a third party (whoever
causes the IANA deprecation) to cause warnings to appear in your tried
and tested and perfectly good EP - CP setup.
Thanks,
P.
On 22/08/12 12:37, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> Following the discussion in Vancouver, I propose to modify RFC5102-bis and the IE-DOCTORS draft to remove the 'obsolete' status; the arguments presented there that two different ways to say "this IE is dead" don't really reflect operational realities seem to me to be pretty convincing.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix