Subject: [ipfix-protocol] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-07.txt posted

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:30:25 +0100

[I've been trying to post twice this email within the last 24 hours... 
with the attached file: diff-proto06-proto07.html. However, this email  
is blocked! So here is the email without the html differences file]

Dear all,

A new version of the IPFIX protocol draft has been posted.
Look at the attached file for a quick overview of the changes ... even 
if I agree this is not terribly useful this time, as I moved the 
transport sections after the "template section" and "collecting 
process's side section" where they make more sense -> htmlwdiff doesn't 
work too well in this case.

Issues solved: 25, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39.

Anyway, the remaining issues in this draft are mainly editorial or could 
be part of the last-call (example: PROTO-30 and PROTO-34)!
Some of them require some new text though...

PROTO-23: Finalize the time details. The time-related Information
Elements are not defined in [IPFIX-INFO]. We agree that the
definition of timer semantics should be moved to the info model
document (see the http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/2588.html email
thread). Now we need:
- to insert some new text in the section 9 of this document
- to insert the timing Information Element in [IFPIX-INFO]
Note: see http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/2580.html for a way to
improve the timing-related Information Elements.

PROTO-30: review RFC 3917, to see if we miss any requirements

PROTO-34: Need a security expert to review the security section:
- [TBD] in the security section
- [EDITOR NOTE: the security section may need be adapted to
the revised transport section], [XXX-REFERENCE]
- [XXX-SCTP-BLIND-SPOOFING-REFERENCE] not defined
- TCP Security
1. Handshake: should we introduce a handshake sequence at the
start of the connection? A simple ASCII-based handshake could
be used to request TLS.
2. It would make sense to add TLS support even in the absence
of a handshake. It would be the responsibility of the
collector (connection initiator) to know whether TLS setup is
required.

PROTO-38: [IPFIX-INFO] consistency issue:
- the ipfixOption, time, droppedFUPacketCount,
droppedFUByteCount, droppedFlows, keyList,
timeFirstFUDropped, timeLastFUDropped, droppedFAPacketCount,
droppedFAByteCount, timeFirstFADropped, timeLastFADropped,
and Exporter ID, Source ID Information Elements are not used
in this document but not yet specified in [IPFIX-INFO].
- Review the Options Template example once the Source ID is
defined as an information element (currently the ID 141 is
used)

PROTO-44: UDP, TCP, and SCTP ports XXXX should be replaced once
assigned by IANA. Proposal: 4739

PROTO-46: TCP section update, waiting text for Simon Leinen. See the
thread starting with http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/2569.html

PROTO-47: Some ‘‘EDITOR’S NOTE’’ in the draft.

PROTO-48: Should the ‘‘sequence number’’ be improved to contains the
number of flow records, like proposed in
http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/2587.html?

Regards, Benoit.

--
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/