Subject: Re: [IPFIX] feedback on draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-03.txt

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:49:43 -0400

Benoit,

Thanks for your IETF last call comments on the biflow draft; we're
presently working to address them in a revision -05 which will be
submitted shortly. We believe this revision will address all the issues
raised. However, we do have one question about a specific issue, inline,
below:

Benoit Claise wrote:
> -  "Note that, for IANA-registered Information
>     Elements or those defined by the IPFIX Information Model
>     [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], Source Key Fields are represented by
>     Information Elements whose names begin with "source", and Destination
>     Key Fields are represented by Information Elements whose names begin
>     with "destination"; it is recommended that vendor-specific
>     information elements follow these conventions, as well."
>     -> this should really be part of [IPFIX-INFO] in section 2.3

True; however, 1. changing section 2.3 at this point would be difficult
given that the information model is in the RFC Editor Queue and 2.
defining the conventions this way requires a definition of "Source Key
Fields" and "Destination Key Fields", which make sense primarily in the
context of biflows... How should we address this at this point?

Regards,

Brian

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

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:49:43 -0400

Benoit,

Regards,

Brian

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:11:45 +0200

Brian,

[sorry for the delay. see inline]
> context of biflows... How should we address this at this point?
You convinced me that changing [IPFIX-INFO] is not ideal as it 
introduced new concepts.  We could fine workarounds for it but basically 
I'm fine with leaving the text in your draft.
One small comment though. In order to double-check this issue, I was 
looking for the definitions of "Source Key Fields" and "Destination Key 
Fields" (since there are capitalized), and I could not find them... You 
should define them, or use "source/destination Unidirectional Key 
Fields", or find another workaround.

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:11:45 +0200

Brian,

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:58:30 -0400

Benoit,

Good point. Indeed, I thought we _had_ defined Source Key Fields and
Destination Key Fields. We've made the suggested change in the
forthcoming -05 rev of the draft.

Thanks,

Brian

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:58:30 -0400

Benoit,

Thanks,

Brian