Re: [IPFIX] unobserved fields
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andrew,
> My earlier email about Extended Field Specifiers reminded me of an
> other draft (draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields) that doesn't seem
> to have gone anywhere, but that I would love to move forward. Having a
> standard way to know if field is unobserved/NULL for a given flow
> would be very valuable.
It's not that this draft didn't go anywhere. Rather, I've written all I
can for now, yet the WG isn't in a position to adopt the work. However
it's a real issue that needs to be solved -in fact, we're already using
some of the techniques in this document - so in my mind it's only "on
hold" until I think of something to add and/or the WG can adopt it.
You're right, Extended Field Specifiers would allow us to tag each field
with an "Observed" attribute with advantages:
- we wouldn't need to change fields to varlen just to report length
= 0.
- we could have a many-valued reason rather than a boolean.
ie, we can report why the value is not available or not applicable.
P.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix