Subject: [ipfix-info] "post" Information Elements: "can not necessarily be observed at the Observation Point of this flow"

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:45:16 +0200

Hi Juergen,

For all the I.E. that have the "post" prefix,  I see this sentence part 
of the description.
"this/these packet(s) can not necessarily be observed at the Observation 
Point of this flow"
This sentence is new in the version 8 of IPFIX-INFO.

I don't understand what the "Observation of this Flow" is.
If I'm enabling the IPFIX metering process on the outgoing interface of 
a router, as an egress feature, I monitor all the packets ... In this 
case, the observation point is the outgoing interface. In this case, as 
this is an egress feature, I report the I.E. with a "post" prefix.

I think these sentences should be removed, as they are confusing.

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, 15 Jul 2005 01:19:35 +0200

Hi Benoit,

There is a problem with the semantics of 'post' in the info model.
The additional text tries to select one of them.  It applies well
to postMCastPacketDeltaCount, postMCastOctetDeltaCount,
postMCastPacketTotalCount, and postMCastOctetTotalCount.

However, it does not fit well to the semantics we had so far for
postOctetDeltaCount, postOctetTotalCount, packetDeltaCount,
postPacketDeltaCount.

I expect this to become a longer discussion.  I will try to describe
my point of view in another email.

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 7/14/2005 11:45 PM +0200 Benoit Claise wrote:

> Hi Juergen,
>
> For all the I.E. that have the "post" prefix,  I see this sentence part of the description.
> "this/these packet(s) can not necessarily be observed at the Observation Point of this flow"
> If I'm enabling the IPFIX metering process on the outgoing interface of a router, as an egress feature, I monitor all the packets ... In this case, the observation point is the outgoing interface. In this case, as this is an egress feature, I report
> the I.E. with a "post" prefix.
>

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:24:57 +1200

> my point of view in another email.

I get the feeling that this issue needs to be resolved before we submit
the draft to IESG, alas.  Juergen, Benoit, Paul, et al., can we try
to get a new consistent pair of drafts (protocol and info) done this
week, please?  We're into the 2-week draft cutoff for the Paris IETF now,
so they'll have to be published on the IPFIX web site - i.e., please
email them to Dave, as well as internet-drafts.

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/

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:30:26 +0200

Nevil,

I will send a detailed discussion of my position on Monday.

If we cannot agree quickly, this could be an interesting discussion
item for the Paris meeting.

    Juergen

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:42:51 +0200

Hello Juergen,

Can you please send the detailed discussion you referred to.
Still hoping we can agree quickly.

Regards, Benoit.