Subject: Re: [IPFIX] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13.txt

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:07:15 +0100

Dear authors,

Looking at the diff, I have the following feedback.

flowSelectorAlgorithm is a new IE, to be registered by IANA
I see this in section 7.1:

    New assignments for the registry will be administered by
    IANA and are subject to Expert Review [RFC5226  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>].

This new registry should be in the IANA considerations section.
For an example of the IANA considerations, see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6313#section-11.3
So the section 7.1 to 7.11 should be in the IANA considerations section.

Also, in that registry, I see:

    +----+------------------------+--------------------------+
    |TBDx| Flow-state Dependent   | No agreed Parameters     |
    |    | Intermediate Flow      |                          |
    |    | Selection Process      |                          |
    +----+------------------------+--------------------------+

This should be

    +----+------------------------+--------------------------+
    |  9 | Flow-state Dependent   | No agreed Parameters     |
    |    | Intermediate Flow      |                          |
    |    | Selection Process      |                          |
    +----+------------------------+--------------------------+

On this last point, I realized that I mislead you. Mea culpa.

I see  in section 7.x

    Status: Proposed

The status should be "current"

Really, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6313#section-11.3 is a good example.

And finally, there are new fields in 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml since you posted you 
version. For example "revision". Instruct IANA that they need to put the 
value 0.

These comments can be taken into account part of the WGLC to come. Up to 
chairs to decide.

Regards, Benoit
> A new version (-13) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13.txt
>
> Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
>
>
> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech/
>
> Diff from previous version:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13
>
> IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:40:34 +0000

Benoit, Authors,

Rather than defining a new "flowSelectorAlgorithm", shouldn't the 
proposed algorithms be added to the existing selectorAlgorithm #304?

This only requires removing "packet" from the existing definition (or 
s/packet/packet and flow/), and allow that a Selection Process can be 
either a packet selection process or a flow selection process.

P.

On 24/02/13 15:07, Benoit Claise wrote:
> version. For example "revision". Instruct IANA that they need to put 
> the value 0.
>
> These comments can be taken into account part of the WGLC to come. Up 
> to chairs to decide.
>
> Regards, Benoit
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:28:08 +0100

> either a packet selection process or a flow selection process.
That would be nice, but I guess we would have to update all the PSAMP 
RFCs. In particular, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5477#section-8.2.1
So in practice, not sure that will happen.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:28:13 +0000

Benoit,

> RFCs. In particular, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5477#section-8.2.1

No, because we already decided that IANA's IPFIX registry is the master 
repository over the IPFIX RFCs - the registry can be updated, corrected, 
and extended, whereas the RFCs cannot.

So the same must hold for the PSAMP RFCs.

P.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:43:46 +0100

On 25/02/2013 10:28, Paul Aitken wrote:
>>> This only requires removing "packet" from the existing definition 
>>> (or s/packet/packet and flow/), and allow that a Selection Process 
>>> can be either a packet selection process or a flow selection process.
> No, because we already decided that IANA's IPFIX registry is the 
> master repository over the IPFIX RFCs - the registry can be updated, 
> corrected, and extended, whereas the RFCs cannot.
Master registry for the IE definitions, granted.
However, IPFIX is not only composed of IPFIX IEs, but also of 
specifications on how to use those IEs. For example, RFC 5476, RFC 6728. 
So changing this definition seems very easy, but I'm concerned by the 
implications on the current set of RFCs.

On top of that selectorAlgorithm is special because there is an IANA 
registry bound to it (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5477#section-8.2.1)

           The selectorAlgorithm registry is maintained by IANA.  New
           assignments for the registry will be administered by IANA and are
           subject to Expert Review [RFC5226  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>].

That's one basic required change, for which a new RFC is required.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:07:08 +0100

Dear authors,

One more feedback, and a question for the WG
Based on feedback received from the OPS DIRECTORATE on RFC5102bis, the 
following was inserted
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-10#section-7.3

    The reference to the current schema is embedded in the registry
    [IPFIX-IANA  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-10#ref-IPFIX-IANA>]; this schema may change from time to time as necessary
    to support the maintenance of the registry. As such, the schema
    urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:ipfix-info [IPFIX-XML-SCHEMA  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-10#ref-IPFIX-XML-SCHEMA>] specified in
    [RFC5102  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5102>] has been deprecated.

Should the IPFIX draft remove the reference to the RFC5102 xsd?
Typically for this draft, it means removing the appendix A 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13#appendix-A)
Personally, I believe it makes sense to remove it.

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)