Re: [IPFIX] Questions about compliance statement in IPFIX-selection-techniqes draft
Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Nevil, "yes, keep the compliance statement in section 6.1". I want to keep the consistency to makes it clear to implementors what's needed for a minimal conforming implementation, and to be similar to RFC 5475 Regards, Benoit (as a contributor) > Hi all: > > draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-16 is now in IESG Evaluation; > it currently has a blocking DISCUSS > > Section 6.1 contains a compliance statement, which says > "In order to be compliant with this document, at least the > Property Match Filtering MUST be implemented." > The AD concerned asks whether we could remove this requirement. > > This was triggered by a remark in my Shepherd statement for this draft, > which said > "This draft raised IPR concerns, in the same manner as the PSAMP > selection draft had done. Nick Duffield (AT&T) commented that > the AT&T IPR claim relates only to statistical sampling, and PSAMP > handled this by saying "at least on of the sampling techniques > must be implemented." > In this draft, we have tightened that up a little by saying > "a conforming implementation MUST implement at least the > Property Match Filtering." > I realise now that the IPR in question was that relating to > draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing, which was discussed > on the IPFIX list back in Feb/Mar 2013; the issue that raised was > cleared by the company concerned making an IPR declaration. > > That leaves us with the question about the compliance requirement. > The motivation for this remains the same as it was for RFC 5475, > "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection," > the statement in section 6.1 simply refines it a little, and makes it > clear to implementors what's needed for a minimal conforming > implementation. > > So now, I need some feedback from the WG. Please send a note to > the list saying > "yes, keep the compliance statement in section 6.1" or > "no, delete the compliance statement in section 6.1. > > Real soon now, please! > > Cheers, Nevil > > > _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix