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
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.