Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5101bis-03.txt
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Gerhard, Thanks for your comments; sorry for missing them in the last revision of 5101bis. I'm applying these to a -05 revision now. One comments inline (as always, points without comment are accepted into the revision without discussion)... On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Gerhard Muenz <[email protected]> wrote: > Still in 8.1, I do not think that this paragraph applies to UDP where we now also allow TWM (as far as I understand): > "If a Collecting Process receives a new Template Record or Options Template Record for an already-allocated Template ID, without having received a withdrawal, it MUST ignore the new Template Record and discard the old Template Record for the allocated ID; it SHOULD log the error." Per the discussion we had last year about the tradeoff between code reuse among transport protocols and interoperability between 5101 and 5101bis, template withdrawals are now no longer specified as allowed on UDP. See also the new (in -04) language on template management errors. As the 5101 language is basically not self-interoperable (collectors are forbidden from attempting to recover from errors which, depending on interpretation, can only result from badly implemented or malicious exporters), the final three paragraphs of section 8.1 are the current suggestion for resolving this situation; do you see any issue with this arrangement? Many thanks, best regards, Brian _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix