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

Paul Aitken <paitken@brocade.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paitken@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143E61A1A1B; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BOWDO2wc9Yux; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC9641A1A12; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000700.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u1G7vTPq016712; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:31:27 -0800
Received: from brmwp-exmb12.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2123085ngt-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:31:26 -0800
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 01:31:25 -0700
Received: from [172.27.212.142] (172.27.212.142) by EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:31:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-06.txt> (IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events)
To: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <ssenthil@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging@ietf.org>
References: <56BC9C63.3080404@brocade.com> <D2E3BF4A.168243%ssenthil@cisco.com> <56BF1786.5090607@brocade.com> <D2E764D8.168A91%ssenthil@cisco.com>
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@brocade.com>
Message-ID: <56C2DE50.8080104@brocade.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:31:12 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2E764D8.168A91%ssenthil@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.27.212.142]
X-ClientProxiedBy: hq1wp-excas12.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.22) To EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-02-16_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1601100000 definitions=main-1602160144
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M5pLfaob0LrDGfbWMmHLePOdjPE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:11:32 -0800
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:31:34 -0000

Senthil,

> [Senthil2] There is already an entry in IPFIX IANA registry for 
> natEvent. There are 3 events (create/delete/pool exhausted) defined 
> there. So I will add text to point to IPFIX IANA registry.
> I assume I have to add the additional events to the IANA 
> considerations section of this draft to have IANA assign these. 
> However, I am not clear how do I request these new values for
> natEvent.  Is the following the right format to ask for the new values?
> Name : natEvent
>
>     Description: This Information Element identifies an Instance of the
>     NAT that runs on a NAT middlebox function after the packet passed the
>     Observation Point.
>
>     Abstract Data Type: unsigned8
>
>     Data Type Semantics: identifier
>     Element ID : 230
>     New values requested : The values 4-16 are requested as described in Table 2.
>
>     Reference:
>
>     See RFC 3022 [RFC3022] for the definition of NAT.  See RFC
>     3234 [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes.

For clarity, it might help to break your IANA Considerations into two 
sub-sections: New Information Elements, and Modified Information 
Elements. Obviously this one is the only entry in the latter section.

The description is wrong! Use the existing #230 description.

Please list the values from Table 2 here directly because this text will 
be extracted into IANA's registry, so it has to make sense stand-alone, 
outside of the RFC-to-be.

So you should also add "See [thisRFC] for the definitions of values 
4-16." to the Reference section.

One concern I have is how to resolve the apparent conflict between the 
existing natEvent create/delete values which seem to be generic, and 
your proposed interpretations in Table 2 which are NAT44 specific. For 
backwards compatibility, it might be better to recognise that values 1 
and 2 may have been used historically for any kind of NAT create/delete, 
and assign new values for the NAT44 and NAT64 specific events. You could 
even request that the old create and delete events now be considered as 
deprecated.

P.