Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 - New Version draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-02.txt
"Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 08:32 UTC
Return-Path: <janovak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DF79E8007 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XLfe1gUx3Xcw for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3BF9E8004 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=23063; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308731536; x=1309941136; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=ayHQ6lOdQKKfnKU+iWsn2tKUBEw8CDoA/7zwTAYsMz4=; b=harGMQ42ZTNZgReQcB2bAzvx2Q9yESYeaw61QG8IIGmSRXafaxSm5i4p WPFo+UtCgxyxK8/m5px6fU6X+ayTYeh5gghR27S1ppv69cnZaQeMOeyqg Ra9XPuDZGf80AV25VE/Z0esiWLayjE+O5+wC1sRm8TOZK27GfRED+xypR U=;
X-Files: bmwg-PJ-review-1.txt : 13398
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,405,1304294400"; d="txt'?scan'208"; a="95855662"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2011 08:32:15 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5M8WFeD009541; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:32:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:32:15 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC30B6.E3B013E1"
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:32:13 +0200
Message-ID: <C95CC96B171AF24CA1BB6CA3C52D0BA0A3F270@XMB-AMS-212.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DFF103A.1000209@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 - New Version draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcwvKvnUr9QBHWVoTmiWXRrPRAOzDABirSpg
References: <4DF60A70.4070902@cisco.com> <4DFF103A.1000209@cisco.com>
From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com>
To: "Paul Aitken (paitken)" <paitken@cisco.com>, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2011 08:32:15.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3D48A80:01CC30B6]
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 - New Version draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-02.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:32:18 -0000
Paul, I would like to thank you for a very detailed review including the language and mainly for improving/introducing the use of correct terminology - I think it made the doc much better !!! I have worked on the text since you first provided the review back in May so I hope it reflects and satisfies all your comments. I have agreed with the very most of changes you wanted but these below which I consider substantial to mention separately. Otherwise see some answers to your questions/concerns through the review in the attached text file. 1) Maximum Flow Monitoring Throughput >PJ: The actual, average or effective "Flow Monitoring Throughput" >may be much lower, so you should clearly name this quantity as > a *maximum*. There is no such a quantity as actual/average/effective Flow Monitoring Throughput - there is simply no definition anywhere for those. Flow Monitoring Throughput is a "MAximum" by definition - please see section 3.1 of the reviewed document. This is in an exact analogy with the section 3.17 of RFC1242 defining the packet forwarding throughput. One could look at your suggestion as just a change of the name for the defined quantity but the "Maximum" here would be an adjective to something else and you would have to define what is the rest behind the adjective ... 2) Export of options and templates >Also, I didn't yet read anything about allowing for export templates >and/or options. Should these be included or excluded from the >measurements? I would like to strongly disagree here. We had extensive discussions about it already with one of the previous reviewers and I always pointed to the definition of Control Information by RFC5470 (and I think also other IPFIX documents) section 2 which in my opinion covers for the export of options and templates but I never got any answer regarding that - neither from you yet. The reviewed document has explicit statements about export of this information in several places unless my understanding of the RFC5470 definition is wrong. I hope not though since I wouldn't like to dive into the definitions of what those are in IPFIX. I hope you can comfirm that. 3) Packet Sampling >PJ: I'd like to see a greater discussion of the relevance of sampling, >throughout this document. I've already indicated a few places where sampling >would impact the test. Packet sampling is out of the scope of this document. If you prefer I will replace section 4.5 of the reviewed document with an explicit statement saying just that instead. It is a separate I would say research subject which can be undertaken by a future work/document. Regards, Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young .... and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: Paul Aitken (paitken) Sent: 20 June 2011 10:18 To: Jan Novak (janovak); Al Morton Cc: bmwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Jan, In reviewing this draft, I objected to numerous places where you discussed the cache as holding Flow Records. eg, "the cache doesn't hold flow records, because the cache is a function of the metering process while flow records are a product of the exporting process." While RFC 5101 (IPFIX) doesn't specifically mention caches, it does say: The Metering Process generates Flow Records. And The Metering Process consists of a set of functions that includes packet header capturing, timestamping, sampling, classifying, and maintaining Flow Records. "maintaining Flow Records" could be interpreted as cache maintenance. So I'll relax my objection because this isn't clearly defined in IPFIX. Thanks, P. On 13/06/11 14:02, Paul Aitken wrote: > Al, Jan, > > I've attached a version of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-01 with > numerous comments inline (look for "PJ:"). > > I've made numerous small changes directly to the text. Hopefully you > can see those with in the change history (see "track changes"). > > I anticipate an updated document and a further WGLC. > > Cheers, > P.
- [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] [IPFIX] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-m… Peter Phaal
- Re: [bmwg] [IPFIX] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-m… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Al Morton
- [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Paul Aitken
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Brian Trammell
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 Paul Aitken
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 -… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 -… Brian Trammell
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 -… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03 Paul Aitken
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 -… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03 Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-04 Jan Novak (janovak)
- [bmwg] Pasted review answers - RE: WGLC: draft-ie… Jan Novak (janovak)
- [bmwg] Issue 1: Ref? to IPFIX Options and Templat… Al Morton
- [bmwg] Flow Export Issue#2: Test Device Capacity Al Morton
- [bmwg] Flow Export Issue #3: Al Morton
- [bmwg] Flow Export Issue#4: Al Morton
- [bmwg] Flow Export Issue #5: Metering Configurati… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] Flow Export Issue#2: Test Device Capac… Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] Flow Export Issue #3: Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] Flow Export Issue#4: Jan Novak (janovak)
- Re: [bmwg] Flow Export Issue #5: Metering Configu… Jan Novak (janovak)