Subject: RE: conference call minutes (was "Re: [ipfix] arch and data con call")

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:23:19 -0500

Hello Wang, Reinaldo,

I also wanted to contribute for security section - it was not came up on the minutes.
May be we can plan our action to come up with combined text.
Regards
Ramg

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Wang, Cliff [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:51 PM
>To: [email-masked]'
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: conference call minutes (was "Re: [ipfix] arch 
>and data con
>call")
>
>
>I (from SmartPipes)participated the call also and volunteered 
>to write the
>security section and works on the NAT part with Reinaldo Penno.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Plonka [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:23 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: conference call minutes (was "Re: [ipfix] arch and 
>data con call")
>
>
>
>IPFIX folks,
>
>Below, please find the minutes that I prepared following a 
>conference call
>that was arranged to organize the IPFIX Internet Draft efforts.
>
>Thanks to KC Norseth and Enterasys for hosting the conference 
>call. A list
>of those that participated follows the minutes below.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The call began Thu Jan 31 ~1300 CST 2002.
>
>The conference call roughly followed an agenda prepared by KC Norseth.
>
>During the discussion various people volunteered to be responsible for
>contributing info on particular topics.  Their names are noted below in
>context.
>
>These topics were discussed:
>
>*) Why are three proposed draft documents laid out this way?
>   * IPFIX Requirements
>   * IPFIX Architecture
>        it was noted that protocol doesn't belong in Architecture
>   * IPFIX Data Model
>
>   Specifically, the question was asked why not a protocol document.
>   (We discussed that we're not chartered to design a protocol, but
>   to concentrate on standardizing existing practice.)
>
>   There is some confusion about what items belong in the Architecture
>   rather than Data model and vice versa.
>
>*) We discussed points suggested for the Architecture draft...
>   The first was "Summary of Operation":
>
>   It was noted that some things about the flow definition (such as
>   what causes a flow to be instantiated, and what temporal
>   characteristics they have) are important to specifying the IPFIX
>   architecture.
>
>*) It was noted that the components or entities (and possibly 
>interfaces
>   between) are a key portion of the Architecture document.
>
>   Capabilities negotiation was also mentioned for the Architecture.
>   Kevin Zhang volunteered to work on this.
>
>   It was mentioned that a work-in-progress Internet Draft document
>   by Benoit and Ganesh does a good job of laying this out.
>
>   It was also mentioned that the Architecture doc should lay out
>   a number of architecture/component "scenarios".
>
>   It was discussed as to whether or not the Requirements document
>   should specify the flow definition.  There was not support voiced
>   for making it more specific.
>
>   There were other kudos for Benoit's & Ganesh's document for its
>   description of the flow "concept".
>
>*) Message formats
>
>   It was noted that "messages formats" mostly belongs in a protocol
>   specification so may be out of scope.  However, it was noted that
>   the items of information would be necessary for the Architecture
>   specification.
>
>   Some folks referred to this as the "information model".
>   KC Norseth, Paul Calato, and Simon Leinen volunteered to work
>   on specifying this information.
>
>   It was noted that the handshaking or interfaces between components
>   does belong in the Architecture.
>
>   It was considered whether or not the "information model" belongs in
>   architecture or data model.  It was suggested that perhaps it would
>   be best to focus on enumerating the important topics, and fit them
>   into the documents afterward.  This idea was supported by others as
>   well.
>
>   Kevin Zhan, Ram Gopal, Man Li, and +Benoit Claise volunteered to
>   work on the Architecture.
>
>   Juergen Quittek volunteered to work work on Terminology.
>
>*) It was mentioned it was hoped that Benoit's & Ganesh's document
>   might serve as a strawman, or starting point for the next WG
>   document.
>
>   The question was raised as to what would be best to do immediately
>   with that document.  It was suggested that it be submitted as an
>   individual draft, and it will be considered as a template or as
>   input to working group documents, like other individual drafts that
>   have been prepared by other IPFIX participants.
>
>*) KC Norseth volunteered to work on Error Detection / Handling, and
>   data recovery.
>
>   Other issues were raised as possibilities for needed to be addressed
>   in some fashion by the Architecture document.  These include NAT,
>   firewalls and middleboxes.
>
>   Reinaldo Penno volunteered to work on the NAT/firewall, and midcom
>   issues/interactions.
>
>*) KC Norseth volunteered to serve as document editor.
>
>*) The point was raised that the upcoming IPFIX document(s) 
>should address
>   or mention interactions with other IETF-specified topics such as
>   AAA, and Intrusion Detection.
>
>   Tanja Zseby volunteered some information about AAA and 
>configuration for
>   flow export.
>
>*) It was noted that the I-D draft deadline is soon for the documents
>   as listed in our WG milestones.  The submission deadlin is Feb. 22
>   for IETF 53.
>
>   As such, thee was support for setting a deadling of Friday, Feb. 8,
>   2002 for those that volunteer info (above) to submit it to the
>   editor, preferably via the IPFIX mailing list 
><[email-masked]>.
>
>*) It was suggested that, until we collect the information from those
>   volunteers and whether it fits into Architecture and Data Model
>   documents, perhaps we should refer to it as a (single) "design"
>   document for the time being.
>
>We signed off from the call at Thu Jan 31 ~1400 CST 2002.
>
>The following (at least) joined the conference call:
>
>   George Carle
>   Tanja Zseby
>   Paul Calato
>   Dave Plonka
>   Kevin Zhang
>   KC Norseth
>   Bill Richards
>   Will Eatherton
>   Benoit Claise
>   Ganesh Sadasivan
>   Vamsi Valluri
>   Ram Gopal
>   Jc Martin
>   Carter Bullard
>   Juergen Quittek
>   Reinaldo Penno
>   Nevil Brownlee
>   Simon Leinen
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Any errors are mine, but please follow-up to the mailing list 
>if you have
>substantive corrections.
>
>Respectfully,
>Dave
>
>-- 
>[email-masked]  http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~plonka  
>ARS:N9HZF  Madison,
>WI
>
>--
>Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" 
>in message
>body
>Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say 
>"unsubscribe ipfix"
>in message body
>Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
>
>--
>Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" 
>in message body
>Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
>"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
>Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
>

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/