Re: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08.txt

Andrew Feren <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Brian, all,

I figured I might as well continue reading documents heading for the 
RFC-EDITOR :-/.  Attached diffs from my super fast skim through the 
document.  All minor.

-Andrew


On 11/19/2012 02:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title           : Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol
> 	Author(s)       : Brian Trammell
>                            Arno Wagner
>                            Benoit Claise
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08.txt
> 	Pages           : 57
> 	Date            : 2012-11-19
>
> Abstract:
>     This document provides a common implementation-independent basis for
>     the interoperable application of the IP Flow Information Export
>     (IPFIX) Protocol to the handling of Aggregated Flows, which are IPFIX
>     Flows representing packets from multiple Original Flows sharing some
>     set of common properties.  It does this through a detailed
>     terminology and a descriptive Intermediate Aggregation Process
>     architecture, including a specification of methods for Original Flow
>     counting and counter distribution across intervals.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
a9n-08.diffs (text/plain, 5.3 KB)
*** draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08.txt	2012-12-04 13:45:53.936750314 -0500
--- draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-08.acf	2012-12-04 13:42:15.926759008 -0500
***************
*** 482,488 ****
  
     Note that an Intermediate Aggregation Process which removes
     potentially sensitive information as identified in [RFC6235] may tend
!    to have an anonymising effect on the Aggregated Flows as well;
     however, any application of aggregation as part of a data protection
     scheme should ensure that all the issues raised in [RFC6235] are
     addressed, specifically Section 4 "Anonymization of IP Flow Data",
--- 482,488 ----
  
     Note that an Intermediate Aggregation Process which removes
     potentially sensitive information as identified in [RFC6235] may tend
!    to have an anonymizing effect on the Aggregated Flows as well;
     however, any application of aggregation as part of a data protection
     scheme should ensure that all the issues raised in [RFC6235] are
     addressed, specifically Section 4 "Anonymization of IP Flow Data",
***************
*** 1309,1315 ****
     | src asn | dst asn |
     +---------+---------+
  
!    Aggregated Flow Keys (by source and dest ASN)
  
          Figure 8: Illustration of key aggregation by reduction and
                                  replacement
--- 1309,1315 ----
     | src asn | dst asn |
     +---------+---------+
  
!    Aggregated Flow Keys (by source and destination ASN)
  
          Figure 8: Illustration of key aggregation by reduction and
                                  replacement
***************
*** 1377,1384 ****
     an effect on how meaningful either the conservative or non-
     conservative flow count will be during aggregation.  In general,
     Original Exporters using the IPFIX Configuration Model SHOULD be
!    configured to export Flows with equal or similar activeTimeout and
!    inactiveTimeout configuration values, and the same cacheMode, as
     defined in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model].  Original Exporters
     not using the IPFIX Configuration Model SHOULD be configured
     equivalently.
--- 1377,1384 ----
     an effect on how meaningful either the conservative or non-
     conservative flow count will be during aggregation.  In general,
     Original Exporters using the IPFIX Configuration Model SHOULD be
!    configured to export Flows with equal or similar flowActiveTimeout and
!    flowIdleTimeout configuration values, and the same cacheMode, as
     defined in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model].  Original Exporters
     not using the IPFIX Configuration Model SHOULD be configured
     equivalently.
***************
*** 1658,1664 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD1
  
--- 1658,1664 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD1
  
***************
*** 1681,1687 ****
  Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              November 2012
  
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD2
  
--- 1681,1687 ----
  Internet-Draft              IPFIX Aggregation              November 2012
  
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD2
  
***************
*** 1693,1699 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD3
  
--- 1693,1699 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD3
  
***************
*** 1705,1711 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCount
  
     ElementId:   3
  
--- 1705,1711 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   deltaCounter
  
     ElementId:   3
  
***************
*** 1725,1731 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
  
  
--- 1725,1731 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
  
  
***************
*** 1749,1755 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD5
  
--- 1749,1755 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD5
  
***************
*** 1760,1766 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD6
  
--- 1760,1766 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD6
  
***************
*** 1771,1777 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD7
  
--- 1771,1777 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned32
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD7
  
***************
*** 1795,1801 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD8
  
--- 1795,1801 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD8
  
***************
*** 1808,1814 ****
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCount
  
     ElementId:   TBD9
  
--- 1808,1814 ----
  
     Abstract Data Type:   unsigned64
  
!    Data Type Semantics:   totalCounter
  
     ElementId:   TBD9
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.