Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-06.txt> (IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events)

"Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <> Mon, 07 March 2016 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58851CD75E; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:15:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.611
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aawFO7UC_dz3; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 017AA1CD73E; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:15:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=89476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457374508; x=1458584108; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=R9Xht0Hha2KjuGMgzf7FddeZNpUwK2dPQscVcdXdZHo=; b=bO+AX5ESn35gsGti6p99Vd6WHga1ejfkeN3hXzWPbzFG5cVfZPuHQ0B/ 5nZhI0QkElMA7RaSsp4/UEj+SIqnm8eUvPSaD7vwYJbfmPl2+MvEK+gkX i0o8DFQ6M1nRvxFkV4tuwH8nAazZbFQwPM9kQI4mUksvwiU5VCvRecV5W g=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-08.txt : 60013
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,552,1449532800"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="84109696"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Mar 2016 18:15:05 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u27IF4EY031652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:15:05 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:15:04 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:15:04 -0600
From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <>
To: Paul Aitken <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-06.txt> (IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events)
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-06.txt> (IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events)
Thread-Index: AQHRZNm5lzhUvHrQNUCIztsT3jxre58pJQsAgAEeHwCAAyMtgIAZS9mAgAepvYCAAFl4AP//zDMA
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 18:15:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_D3032C1B16B20Cssenthilciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:59:49 -0800
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 18:15:13 -0000

8.1. New Information Elements / natLimitEvent, natThresholdEvent,

-> typo: " describer in Table below."

-> you should remove the "Table 22" and "Table 23" descriptions under those tables, because these won't make any sense when the text is transcribed into IANA's registry. E

[Senthil] I am not sure I understand why, because in section 8.1, for natInstanceI,  internalAddressRealm, externalAddressRealm we have this format of name/description/data type and references.
Why is natLimitEvent and natThresholdEvent different just because they have their values defined?

You misunderstand: I mean the description text immediately underneath the tables, specifically the text which says: "Table 22: Quota Exceeded event table", "Table 23: Threshold event table", and "Table 24: NAT Event ID table". I'm not talking about the table contents.

IANA will take the relevant sections from your draft into their IPFIX registry. While "Table NN: whatever" makes perfect sense in the draft, it makes no sense in IANA's IPFIX registry - so IANA would have to selectively edit the definition you're providing. While I'm sure they're capable of doing that, the issue would be avoided if those tables didn't have descriptions.

[Senthil2] Ok, understood and fixed.
8.2. Modified Information Elements / natEvent

-> Again, you can't modify the definitions of the existing values.

[Senthil] Is there a process on how to modify/deprecate the previously defined values and replace it with new ones?

You can't modify the existing values, because there could be an unknown number of existing devices already using those values. I hope that IANA has already sent you feedback from the IPFIX expert reviewers indicating the best way forward.

[Senthil2] I have not heard any suggestions yet from IANA, I will wait for the review. Attaching the draft as it stands, with all the comments incorporated, let me know if you have any comments before I publish.