Re: [IPFIX] Winding down the ipfix working group.

Brian Trammell <[email protected]> Sat, 13 Dec 2014 22:32:07 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
hi Paul, all,

AFAIC, I sent in my review on 15 August 2014, edits were made 26 Oct, I followed up 27 Oct. The *document* is basically good to go, I see that there are a couple of outstanding questions from Paul's 30 Oct message; sorry for missing these...

>>>> What the mechanism in the document should _not_ be used for is to expand the IPFIX information model to also include the contents of all the various MIBs, such that SMI IEs could be used alongside IPFIX IEs to export information from non-SNMP sources of data. Otherwise we've created Yet Another Representation for lots of common IEs already in the IPFIX IE registry, which would significantly complicate the comparison and combination of data at collectors. The document needs to make this explicit, either in section 1 or 2.
>>> The mechanism _can_ be used like that.
>> Can be, yes. Is it the express intention of the authors of the draft to do so?
> 
> Authors aside, what does the WG want? Ultimately the goal is to avoid creating new IPFIX IEs for each MIB that needs exported. Does that require considering MIBs as part of the info model?

So I've thought about this a bit and I *think* we agree here: this mechanism exists so that things which are already in MIBs can be exported via IPFIX without having to define new IEs.

Personally, I'd be happy if we didn't start deprecating things already in the native registry in favor of things in MIBs, and if the IE Doctors don't tell someone who wants an IE that they can't have it because it's in MIB X. I don't believe it's necessary to write any of that down though.

>>> Expressed another way, we've already created duplication; now we have to live with it.
>> Actually this seems to be closer to "we've already created duplication, so we can happily create more," which seems dangerous for sustainable interop.
> 
> What change, if any, would you like to see in the draft?


As long as it's clear that the mechanism is intended to glue MIBs to IPFIX, none.

Cheers,

Brian

On 13 Dec 2014, at 00:13, Paul Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:

> Joel, All,
>  
> I’m waiting for WG review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-07
> -principally from Brian Trammell and Juergen Schoenwaelder.
>  
> P.
>  
>  
> From: joel jaeggli <[email protected]>
> Date: 12 December 2014 at 20:05
> Subject: [IPFIX] Winding down the ipfix working group.
> To: IPFIX Working Group <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> The chairs and my co-AD and I have decided it's time to window down the
> ipfix working group. Our major milestones are completed and we should be
> pleased with the results.
> 
> We have one remaining active document
> 
> draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export
> 
> which I will be happy to AD sponsor. Barring significant commentary to
> contrary I will close the working-group on friday december 19th and we
> will retain the mailing list for some time after that.
> 
> Thanks and congratulations.
> Joel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 496 B)