Subject: [ipfix-eval] Let's not get into this slippery slope

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:24:37 -0700

Hello,

I saw this message in MIDCOM WG and since we are using kind of the same
procedures to evaluate protocols I thought it would be interesting to get
this perspective. I kind of share Jiri's concerns that we might be here
years later still debating which protocol is best in the main ipfix list...

I'm less worried about the simplicity factor since I think most candidates
are simple (with the exception of Diameter). Some are more simple than
others but in the end it's just a few (sometime optional) messages back and
forth.

No, I do not have any proposals at this time on a different evaluation
method or how to avoid this (possible) problem...

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 16 October 2002 14:36 
To: Juergen Quittek; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol selection procedure 

At 11:06 AM 10/16/2002, Juergen Quittek wrote: 
>Hi all, 
> 
>Maybe I'm too impatient, but I want to get an idea how we are 
>going to select the midcom protocol. 
> 
>We have our requirements, we have an almost completed evaluation 
>of five protocols, and we are getting towards an idea of the 
>semantics of the protocol. This is apparently sufficient preparation 
>for starting to think about the decision process. 
> 
>Unfortunately, the evaluation did not identify a clearly superior 
>candidate, but found that there are several ones that are suited. 

I actually think this protocol shopping is a bug in strategy. With 
some effort very many protocols may be tweaked to make requirements 
happy, each having some cons and prons. The result seems questionnable 
-- after two years of advocating why one's pet better than someone else's, 
we may easily end up with a suboptimal protocol. I would not be surprised 
to see too big complexity, because of reusing a protocol for too many 
purposes. 

I saw few simple proposals on the table and would prefer going ahead with 
them. Simplicity is good and actually should be boldly stated as R0. 

-Jiri

---

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:57:03 -0400

I recommend that if there are multiple protocols that meet most
requirements, and that the requirements which are not met are not
show-stoppers, so it is difficult to select a protocol based on technical
comparisons, then the tie should be broken by looking at the likelihood of
acceptance in the marketplace.
 
Given two technically comparable candidates, we should consider the
likelihood that vendors will ship the protocol in their devices and that
vendors' customers will deploy the functionality in their networks.
 
It doesn't matter what the IETF says is a standard if nobody uses it. The
market is the most important decider of industry standards.
 
Some words of wisdom from the SNMPv3 co-chair.
dbh
---
David Harrington           
[email-masked]          
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG

-----Original Message-----
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipfix-eval] Let's not get into this slippery slope
Importance: High

Hello, 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jiri Kuthan [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: 16 October 2002 14:36 
To: Juergen Quittek; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol selection procedure 

-Jiri

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:01:11 -0700

Hello David,

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipfix-eval] Let's not get into this slippery slope

 
well, the vendors might put anything in their devices. IPfix alone, as a
self contained entity, is just a way of exporting IP information and saving
it on some storage. One important piece should be the willingness of
application vendors to build things based on the data available through the
protocol. Because in the end what customers want is the traffic profiling
reports, intrusion detection alarms, mediation to other systems, etc, etc. 
 
I also miss service providers on this list. 

agree, I'm assuming the market in the IPfix case is (vendors of hardware+
application vendors + ISPs.). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 4:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipfix-eval] Let's not get into this slippery slope
Importance: High

Hello, 

-----Original Message----- 

-Jiri