IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

"Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21181317B6 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6gZ2V3SYWP9 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F40191317AC for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCU65770; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 01:44:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMI414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.86.210.49) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 01:44:29 +0000
Received: from SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.223]) by SZXEMI414-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.86.210.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:44:23 +0800
From: "Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
Thread-Index: AdKbyycv4ZM58GBcQp6mg2Ssqy0mugAR5PJwABh/KBAABDR/AAAp3MHw
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 01:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538B90@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538042@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F19267@marathon> <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED00015389FC@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com> <DD376EA7-28E1-466F-9186-5BEAF3B76E5E@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <DD376EA7-28E1-466F-9186-5BEAF3B76E5E@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.87.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.58C89C7E.009F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.8.223, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: dd8395589a27cdffb920f9a384f79ae2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/IlPTeQr_V336fUlUiHkPefmja9Q>
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 01:44:34 -0000

Hi Roland,

Don't worry, if the draft really doesn't suit in this WG, we will move away.
But, I think we just to hear some voice before doing so, due to the original draft was submitted here.

It'd been more appreciated if you could give some details about your statements 1 to 4.

Best Regards,
Zhenghui (Marvin)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Dobbins
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:41 PM
To: dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

On 14 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Zhenghui (Marvin) wrote:

> Basically, we'd like to hear from the WG, about their opinions on this 
> draft, so we can figure out what to do next.

1.  The draft itself is predicted upon invalid assumptions about the capabilities inherent in IPFIX as it stands today.

2.  The draft itself is predicated upon invalid assumptions about the capabilities inherent in IPFIX collectors/analyzers today.

3.  The draft itself is predicated upon invalid assumptions about the capabilities inherent in IPFIX exporters today and anticipated in the foreseeable future.

4.  The draft itself is predicated upon invalid assumptions about the division of labor between IPFIX exporters and IPFIX collectors/analyzers.

5.  The best forum for this discussion is within the Operations and Management Area of the IETF.

6.  The way to initiate a discussion about re-opening the IPFIX WG is to engage the IETF Area Director for Operations and Management.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email