Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:58:48 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Exporting MIB Variables using the IPFIX Protocol
	Author(s)       : Paul Aitken
                          Benoit Claise
                          Colin McDowall
                          Juergen Schoenwaelder
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-03.txt
	Pages           : 56
	Date            : 2013-10-21

Abstract:
   This document specifies a way to complement IPFIX Data Records with
   Management Information Base (MIB) objects, avoiding the need to
   define new IPFIX Information Elements for existing Management
   Information Base objects that are already fully specified.

   An IPFIX Option Template and method are specified, which are used to
   export the extra information required to fully describe Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP) MIB Objects.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:35:53 +0100

Dear IPFIX experts,

We've rewritten the IPFIX MIB export draft to use regular IPFIX option 
templates rather than extended field specifiers.

We'd appreciate your feedback whether this seems about right.

Also your feedback on two TBD issues in the text:

1. Should there be a single "mibObjectValue" IE, combined with a 
"mibObjectBaseSyntax" IE to define the type?
     Or, should there be multiple "value" IEs, one per RFC 2578 type 
(eg, mibObjectIntegerValue, mibObjectIpAddressValue, ...) ?

2. Should we consolidate the RFC 2578 ObjectSyntax with the RFC5610 / 
[IANA- DATATYPES] types?

Thanks,
Paul and Colin.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Sender: [email-masked]] [IPFIX] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-03.txt
Date: 	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:58:48 -0700
From: 	[email-masked]
To: 	[email-masked]
CC: 	[email-masked]

Abstract:

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