Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Paul, On 2 Nov 2012, at 6:12, Paul Aitken <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian, > >> I wondered this myself, and I suspect you can't find the LC announcement for this document because you may not be searching far enough in the past. > > Not so. I searched both my email and the IPFIX WG archive back to -a9n-00 on October 31st 2011. Hm, indeed, the draft is called "Aggregation" in the subject of the WGLC message... >>>> >>> So there are several options: >>> >>> 1. drop the late flows. In this case the late traffic is utterly lost, which may be quite undesirable. >>> >>> 2. re-open the appropriate aggregation to correctly account the late flows. >>> 2a. don't close aggregations immediately, but wait for some period and accept late flows. >>> >>> 3. account the late flows in the current (though wrong) aggregation. >>> >>> I'd prefer that the doc discussed the options or gave reasons rather than simply advising "SHOULD drop". >> The real solution IMO is wait and make sure you've got everything, and treat exceptions as just that. 2a. is just a variant of that solution with two different kinds of waiting. 3. is for when it's more important to be conservative than to be correct, when waiting all the time isn't possible. But this is getting very deeply into implementation choices and application-specific requirements, so I'm inclined to leave it as is. The intention here, again, is to give recommendations for non-corner cases while allowing implementation flexibility. > > What you say seems to be contrary to the "SHOULD drop" recommendation. Perhaps that should be downgraded to "MAY drop", which seems to give permission rather than a recommendation. Works for me. I'll put it on the pile for -08 Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix