Subject: [ipfix-info] IANA in IPFIX-INFO: extension?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:43:44 +0200

Dear all,

The IANA section in IPFIX is pretty light, while it's fully specified in 
IPFIX-ARCH.
If IPFIX-INFO is standard track (*), shouldn't expand this IANA section 
with information in IPFIX-ARCH?
If IPFIX-INFO is not standard track but IPFIX-ARCH is, then a pointer to 
the IPFIX-ARCH IANA section would already be a plus.

(*) I'm always confused by which drafts will be standard track or not

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, 03 Jun 2005 11:43:43 +0200

Hi Benoit,

IPFIX-PROTOCOL and IPFIX-INFO will definitely be standards track.
So far I thought that IPFIX-ARCH would become informational,
but I am not sure about this.

The IAMA considerations in IPFIX-ARCH have two sub-sections
(13.1 and 13.2).

13.1 applies to the protocol and 13.2 to the info model.
So content-wise 13.2 should be reflected by the IANA considerations
in IPFIX-INFO.

I agree that the first paragraph in the IANA considerations section
of IPFIX-INFO is rather light.  I suggest to replace it by the
second paragraph of section 12.2 in IPFIX-PROTO.

Thanks,

    Juergen

--On 6/3/2005 10:43 AM +0200 Benoit Claise wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The IANA section in IPFIX is pretty light, while it's fully specified in IPFIX-ARCH.
> If IPFIX-INFO is standard track (*), shouldn't expand this IANA section with information in IPFIX-ARCH?
> If IPFIX-INFO is not standard track but IPFIX-ARCH is, then a pointer to the IPFIX-ARCH IANA section would already be a plus.
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:13:12 +0200

Juergen,

> second paragraph of section 12.2 in IPFIX-PROTO.

That makes sense.

Regards, Benoit.

>> If IPFIX-INFO is not standard track but IPFIX-ARCH is, then a pointer 
>> to the IPFIX-ARCH IANA section would already be a plus.
>>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:36:46 +0100

Protocol will be STDs.

An arch RFC does not usually need to be STDs, because it does
not usually specify anything needed for interoperability.

Info should be STD as well, since it contains the default
set of IEs, and contains the .xml to set them up. Since it
is the document that causes IANA to set up the IE registry
it should be the place where we define the IE policy.

- Stewart

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:05:48 +1200

Hi all:

> it should be the place where we define the IE policy.

Exactly.  Protocol and Info will be Standards-track, Architecture
and AS will be Ibnformational.

I liked Juergen's suggestion for improving the IANA Cosiderations
part of Info; that's the kind of editorial change we need to make 
after the WG Last Call, before we submit the drafts to IESG.

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   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/