Subject: [IPFIX] Biflows draft: should it be Standards Track

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:06:13 +1200

Hi all:

We've had a comment from Sam Hartman (Security Area AD), saying
"Why should this *not* this be Standards Track?"

 From the point of view that we'd like all collectors to understand
biflows, Standards Track would be good.   However, we know that
  - we didn't want to add anything that needed changes to the protocol
      (that has to wait until we have enough experience for IPFIXv2!)
  - the draft's method for handling biflows is therefore a retrofit,
      introducing the 'reverse' info elements using a defined
      Private Enterprise Number (essentially using that as a simple
      way to extend the IPFIX information model)

Having the biflows RFC as Standards Track would ensure that different
implementations implement biflows the same way 'on the wire,' so I
think that's reasonable.

Again, another possibilty is Experimental.  That flags it as  
something that vendors don't have to implement to comply, instead as  
something
that the WG wants to get some operational experience with.

Can we have some feedback, please, on whether the Biflows Draft
should be Standards Track or Experimental, please ...

Cheers, Nevil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:12:47 +0100

Nevil Brownlee wrote:
[..]
> implementations implement biflows the same way 'on the wire,' so I

Having a single published draft ensures that, as implementations can
claim they are "compliant to draft X". There is no difference between
draft, RFC, STD etc. As one is compliant to X or not.

> Again, another possibilty is Experimental.  That flags it as something
> that vendors don't have to implement to comply, instead as something

Just noting that it is an optional component of IPFIX already solves
that problem. The word "SHOULD" comes to mind here which covers that.

> should be Standards Track or Experimental, please ...

Go for Standards Track. Define a well defined ID for it too.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:12:47 +0100

Nevil Brownlee wrote:
[..]

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:37:17 -0400

Nevil and all,

For the record, I'm in favor of changing the intended status of the
Biflow Draft to Standards Track.

Cheers,

Brian

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:37:17 -0400

Nevil and all,

Cheers,

Brian