Subject: [ipfix-req] Requirements draft issues - Reinaldo 2

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:26:15 -0700

Issue Number : Reinaldo 2

Issue: 

In the beggining of section 5.1 it is stated that 

"This is based on the requirements specified in the requirement 
   document [2]." 

But I couldn't find a peer of some of the requirements from architecture
draft on the requirements draft. Will these be included on the requirements
draft? Excluded from the architecture? For example....

5.1.2. IPFIX Protocol on IPFIX Device (At Export Process) 

     1. Ability to detect loss of connectivity with the collector and 
        trigger the appropriate action (eg. a switch over to an 
        alternate collector.) <--- 
     2. Optionally export flow records to multiple collectors. 
     3. Optionally re-transmit lost flow records. <--- 
     4. Exchange control information from the collector, monitor export 
        process and detect any overload in the process of exporting. <--- P 

Proposed Solution:

I would suggest to just take out the requirement section from the
architecture draft and incorporate the relevant parts into the requirements
draft to avoid confusion and repetition. If people do not agree it would be
good if the editors of both documents would put them side by side and
compare the wording.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:06:37 +0200

Reinaldo,

> "This is based on the requirements specified in the requirement
You are referring to
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-02.txt
But the architecture draft work is on hold until we have consensus on 
the requirement draft and selected the candidate protocol.

Regards, Benoit.

> But I couldn't find a peer of some of the requirements from 
> architecture draft on the requirements draft. Will these be included 
> on the requirements draft? Excluded from the architecture? For example....
>
> architecture draft and incorporate the relevant parts into the 
> requirements draft to avoid confusion and repetition. If people do not 
> agree it would be good if the editors of both documents would put them 
> side by side and compare the wording.
>

--
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/