Subject: [ipfix] WG Last Call - please read our drafts and comment *now*

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:13:08 +1300

Hi all:

As mentioned in our draft agenda for the Minneapolis IETF meeting,
the four IPFIX drafts have all been revised since the DC IETF in
November 2004.  They are

 Applicability Statement  draft-ietf-ipfix-as-04.txt
 Architecture             draft-ietf-ipfix-architecture-06.txt
 Protocol                 draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-08.txt
 Information Model        draft-ietf-ipfix-info-06.txt

All four are available from the IPFIX home page,
   http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/
and/or from the IPFIX WG page on the IETF site,
   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipfix-charter.html

This posting announces the start of a two-week WG Last Call on these
four drafts.  Please read them, and post your comments to the IPFIX
list ([email-masked]).  

 * If you're happy with, or can at least live with, the drafts as they
 * are now, please say so - that will help support us when we submit
 * the drafts to IESG for publication as RFCs.

The IPFIX WG has reached a stage when, although we know that people
are working on implementations and interoperability, only a few people
are actively working on the documents.  At the same time we're under
increasing pressure from our AD to get the documents finished - other
WGs are held up waiting for them.

At this stage there are few issues left outstanding, and the draft
editors have worked hard to resolve them.  By starting the WG Last Call
now, we're hoping to bring out any remaining problems in the drafts.
Also, given the pressure on us to finish things, it's entirely
possible that our session in Minneapolis will be the last IPFIX
one at an IETF meeting.

Summary: we really do want to get the drafts finished and submitted,
we *need* your feedback.  Do please read them and post your comments
to the ipfix list.  It's important for all reviewers to post, 
regardless of whether or not they open new issues.

Cheers, Nevil & Dave  (IPFIX co-chairs)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                 Computer Science Department | ITSS
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941           The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/

--
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/

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:24:42 +1300

Forwarded by Nevil from Tal Givoli ...........................

Nevil,

I believe to the fact that the applicability statement doesn't document
any caveats regarding the use of IPFIX for billing or accounting.
Despite the fact that IPFIX provides a flexible way to encode a variety
of record structures for a variety of services, it couldn't be used for
VoIP, telephony calls, e-commerce transactions or ATM transactions, for
that matter.  One might ask oneself why is this the case? Because the
reliability is not at the degree of reliability currently offered by
RADIUS, DIAMETER, AMATPS/AMADNS, GTP', IPDR Streaming Protocol, and
other protocols.

I believe this needs to be clearly denoted and perhaps the applicability
statement is where it might be worth mentioning this.

This was addressed in the requirement document by including in section 3
the statement:

   The reliability requirements defined in sections 5.1 and 6.3.2. are
not
   sufficient to guarantee the level of reliability that is needed for
   many usage-based accounting systems.  Particular reliability
   requirements for accounting systems are discussed in [RFC2975].

Perhaps this needs to be echoed in a similar fashion in section 2.1 of
the applicability statement?

Tal