Subject: [ipfix-protocol] Template Set -> Flow Template Set AND Template Record -> Flow Template Record?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:00:55 +0100

Dear all,

While reviewing [IPFIX-PROTO] with Thomas Dietz, Thomas had the following suggestion.
Why not rename the following two terms?
	Template Set -> Flow Template Set
	Template Record -> Flow Template Record

The terminology was so far:

   +------------------+---------------------------------------------+ 
   |                  |                    Contents                 | 
   |                  +--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |       Set        | Template  Record   |      data record       | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |                  |                    |  Flow Data Record(s)   | 
   |   Data Set       |          /         |          or            | 
   |                  |                    | Options Data Record(s) | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |   Template Set   | Template Record(s) |           /            | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   | Options Template | Options Template   |           /            | 
   |       Set        | Record(s)          |                        | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 

Template Record 

  A Template Record defines the structure and interpretation of fields 
  in a Flow Data Record. 
   
Options Template Record 

  An Options Template Record defines the structure and interpretation 
  of fields in an Options Data Record, including defining how to scope 
  the applicability of the Options Data Record. The terminology would become

Template Set 

  A Template Set is a collection of one or more Template Records that 
  have been grouped together in an IPFIX Message.  
    
Options Template Set 
  An Options Template Set is a collection of one or more Options 
  Template Records that have been grouped together in an IPFIX 
  Message. 

The new terminology would become:

   +------------------+---------------------------------------------+ 
   |                  |                    Contents                 | 
   |                  +--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |       Set        | Template  Record   |      data record       | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |                  |                    |  Flow Data Record(s)   | 
   |   Data Set       |          /         |          or            | 
   |                  |                    | Options Data Record(s) | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   |       Flow       |      Flow          |                        | 
   |   Template Set   | Template Record(s) |           /            | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 
   | Options Template | Options Template   |           /            | 
   |       Set        | Record(s)          |                        | 
   +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+ 

My view is: even if IPFIX was developed with the notion of flow in mind, the templates and options templates are specified in a generic way, allowing the export of any information elements: even non-flow related 
So why limit the Template Set to Flow Template Set.
Moreover, I'm somehow reluctant to do this terminology change during the last-call, since we've been working with those terms for a long time. 
However, as draft editor, I will follow the mailing list consensus.
Feedback?

Note: sometimes, copying figures into email leads to misaligned figures. To be able to correctly read the figures, I use  "email forward"... it works for me!

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/

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:16:07 +0100

Benoit,

I support Thomas's proposal.

So far we have

Flow Data Record
Option data Record
Template Record
Option template Record

So, for the Data records we have one with prefix "Flow"
and one with prefix "Option".

For the Template record we have one without prefix
and one with prefix "Option".

The two ones with prefix "Option" correspond to each other:
"Option Data Record" and "Option Template Record".

The other two also correspond to each other but do not share
the same prefix: "Flow Data Record" and "Template Record".

This seems to be inconsistent and Thomas's suggestion would
make the terminology consistent.

Another advantage of Thomas's termonology would be that you
can use the term "template records" for addressing both,
flow template records and option template records (as you can
do already for the data records.

Below you argue that IPFIX is basically about flows and
therefore "Template Record" does not need a prefix "Flow".
Following this line of argumentation we can also achieve
consistency of the terminology by renaming "Flow Data Record"
into "Data Record".

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

--On 03.03.2005 18:00 h +0100 Benoit Claise wrote:

> My view is: even if IPFIX was developed with the notion of flow in mind, the templates and options templates are specified in a generic way, allowing the export of any information elements: even non-flow related So why limit the Template Set to Flow
> Template Set. Moreover, I'm somehow reluctant to do this terminology change during the last-call, since we've been working with those terms for a long time.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:56:56 +0100

Juergen,

> consistency of the terminology by renaming "Flow Data Record"

Replacing "Flow Data Record" by "Data Record"  is a good idea that will 
bring consistency of the terminology.
I support this idea.

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Lutz Mark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:31:30 +0100

> bring consistency of the terminology.

so I vote for the terms: Template Set, Template Record, Date Record

Regards,
Lutz

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:28:48 +0100

Lutz Mark wrote:

>> Replacing "Flow Data Record" by "Data Record"  is a good idea that 
>> will bring consistency of the terminology.
>> I support this idea.
>
>

Too make sure we all agree, the new terminology table would look like:

  |   Data Set       |          /         |     Data Record(s)     | 
 
Regards, Benoit.

Regards,  Benoit.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:55:45 +0000

> bring consistency of the terminology.

and me.

Stewart

---

From: Sebastian Zander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:59:52 +1100

Hi Benoit,

i don't think it's a good idea to replace 'flow data record' with data
record. afterall ipfix is about transporting flow data. data record is
already used as a more general term for flow data records and
options data records (see Figure A). if you change 'flow data record' to
'data record' 'options data record' would also be a data record and it
is not clear anymore what data record means.

i like the idea to use more general terms and more specific terms as
appropriate and to describe their relation as it is done in Figure A.

there are some inconsistencies in the terminology section:
- 'data record' is not defined as far as i can see (but used in Figure A)
   (i noticed the difference of using upper and lower case words but it is
    very confusing in my opinion.)
- 'Template Set' and 'Template Records(s)' should change to 'Flow Template
   Set' and 'Flow Template Records(s)' IMO as pointed out by Thomas (here
   is the problem i mentioned earlier: a template record is a template record
   but an option template record is also a template record according to
   the table, which is confusing)
- is there a reason why there is only Data Set and not Flow Data Set and
   Options Data Set? can't i have separated sets in the ipfix messages?

would be good to alphabetically sort the terminology at the end.

Cheers,

Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian Zander
http://caia.swin.edu.au

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:31:44 +0100

Hi Sebastian,

> is not clear anymore what data record means.

I see an advantage in having the generic term "Data Record" because:
from a Collecting Process point of view, there is no differences between 
an Options Data Record and an Flow Data Record.
It's only whenever you analyze the associate (Options) Template Record 
that you know whether this is an Options Data Record or an Flow Data Record

>    very confusing in my opinion.)

It would have to be if we use the term in Figure A.
I would see a definition such as:

Data Record 
   A Data Record is a record that contains values of the parameters 
   corresponding to a Template Record or an Options Template Record.  

    |       Set        |       Template     |        Record          | 

>   the table, which is confusing)

Yes, but a special Template Record. Isn't it the case?

>   Options Data Set? can't i have separated sets in the ipfix messages?

See my explanation before: from a coding point of view, there are no 
differences between what you call "Flow Data Set" and
  "Options Data Set."

> would be good to alphabetically sort the terminology at the end.

When publishing RFC3954, I had the specific comment from IESG that I 
should group the terms in a logical order, to increase the readability
As the terminology is almost similar, I think it applies to this draft also.

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Sebastian Zander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:07:45 +1100

Hi Benoit,

i'm not against having the term Data Record (in fact we already had it in
Figure A). i'm against completely replacing 'Flow Data Record' with Data
Record. the term Data Record should be qualified with either Flow or Options
when we specifically talk about one of them because currently there are
separate defintions for them (e.g. section 6.4 and section 6.5.3).

you are completely right that there is no difference between options data
records and flow data record and the only difference between the templates
is the scope field count (from the colltector's viewpoint). then why do we
need to have separate defintions? we could easily reduce the protocol to
one template format (the options template set format) and one data set format.
in my opinion the 2 byte scope field count does not justify to duplicate the
defintion. instead of trying to make the protocol look simpler and more general
by changing terminology we should actually make it simpler and more general.

Cheers,

Sebastian

Benoit Claise wrote:

> Data Record   A Data Record is a record that contains values of the 
> parameters   corresponding to a Template Record or an Options Template 
> Record. 
> +------------------+--------------------+------------------------+    | 
> Options Template | Options Template   |           /            |    
> |       Set        |     Record(s)      |                        |    

-- 
Sebastian Zander
http://caia.swin.edu.au