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

Brian, please see inline...

Thanks,
P.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Trammell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 13 December 2014 21:32
> To: Paul Aitken
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Winding down the ipfix working group.
> 
> 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.

Exactly.


> Personally, I'd be happy if we didn't start deprecating things already in the native
> registry in favor of things in MIBs,

Agreed; this document does not deprecate any existing IEs.

- which means there are now two ways of exporting some things (as IE and as MIB). Collectors should already have architectures which understand this equivalence (effectively a presentation layer) since there are already some equivalent (duplicate) IEs (Andrew Feren had a list), and the list will surely grow as enterprise-specific IEs are transitioned to IANA. So I consider this to be a pre-existing issue which was not introduced by this document.

Therefore I don't see a need to document the existing IE / MIB equivalences in the document. Please shout if you disagree.


> 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 think it'll be on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully they'll encourage the use of MIB export. However if the use case involves exporting lots of other IEs and no other MIBs, then a new IE would seem justified for simplicity.
Remember that the point of the draft is to avoid overloading the IANA registry with new IEs which are equivalent to existing MIBs.


>  I don't believe it's necessary to write any of that down though.

+1


> >>> 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.

Great, thanks!

P.


> 
> 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