Re: [IPFIX] DRAFT IPFIX minutes from IETF 80

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lothar,
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> Here are my draft minutes for Tuesday's meeting; they include my
>> summary of the alternatives from our 'Draft Standards?' discussion.
>>
>> Please send me any corrections, changes, etc as soon as possible.
>>
>> Minutes of the IPFIX meeting at IETF 80
>> About 36 people present
>> Scribes: Cyndi Mills&  Nevil Brownlee
>>
>> Nevil Brownlee presented current WG document status.  Three documents
>> completed since IETF 79 (Export-per-SCTP-stream, Mediators Framework
>> and Anonymisation Support), one with IESG (Structured Data).  We have
>> received comments on the IPFIX Configuration Model draft from the YANG
>> Doctors, and have been carefully considered.  Juergen will do its
>> write-up.  The PSAMP MIB has been revised to use the UnsiUnsigned64TC
>> and Float64TC Textual Conventions from other MIBs.  Nevil will do its
>> write-up.  The remaining work item, Flow Selection, is under review,
>> and will be discussed further on the IPFIX list.
>>
>> Brian Trammell presented a report on the 'DEMONS IPFIX
>> Interoperability Test,' held in Prague, 24-25 March.  This was the
>> fourth such event for IPFIX, with eight implementations (4 exporters,
>> 3 collectors) being tested.  Interoperation was complete for UDP,
>> less so for TCP; for SCTP it was dependent on the SCTP
>> implementations used.  Quite a few issues came to light (see the
>> slides), many were fixed during the event.
>> Several people commented on SCTP implementation issues, suggesting
>> that perhaps "template handling is needlessly complicated in the
>> (IPFIX) protocol."  Dan Romascanu (our AD) asked for an Interoperation
>> Report, Brian says he has one written as an Internet Draft.
>>
>> Lothar Braun presented Recommendations for Implementing IPFIX over
>> DTLS/UDP.  DTLS is mandatory for IPFIX over UDP and SCTP, but using
>> it is difficult because IPFIX traffic is unidirectional, but DTLS
>> requires shared state.  Discussion centred on IPFIX's need for a
>> heartbeat to detect collector failures, and whether IPFIX should do
>> its own heartbeat.  Lothar's recommendations could fit in a revision
>> of IPFIX Implementation Guidelines.
>>
>> Juergen lead a discussion on whether we should work on moving some of
>> the IPFIX standards from Proposed to Draft.  Dan explained that to
>> do so any changes would need to be editorial, not technical.  There
>> was considerable discussion, the main points being:
>> 1. There are many errata for 5101 and 5102, it would be good to have a
>>    new draft that does that, along with some more explanatory
>>    (editorial) text where needed
>> 2. If we move 5101 and 5102 to Draft, any changes - however small -
>>    would need to be a new version of the IPFIX protocol.  Doing that
>>    could lead to confusion among IPFIX implementors and users
>> 3. An alternative approach would be to work on a new draft (which
>>    implemented small changes that did not affect interoperation, for
>>    example adding detail where there are gaps in 5101) as a Standards
>>    Track successor to 5101.  Once that had been published as an RFC
>>    for some time, we could work on moving it to Draft; that should be
>>    possible in a reasonably short time.
>> 4. Other things that could be considered: IPFIX heartbeat provision
>>    (we need to consider how long it will take TSVWG to complete the
>>    DTLS Heartbeat Extension), change canonical transport to TCP, ... ?
> I've been to the TLS WG meeting
Any update on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-09.txt?

Regards, Benoit.
> and checked upon the status and future plans of the DTLS heartbeat draft. The draft has been adopted as a working group document quite some time ago, which I completely missed.
>
> TLS chairs were confident that it would not take very long to move it to PS.
> According to them, the document is in quite good shape, and could soon progress to WGLC after a review from the transport area has been received.
>
>> 5. Another possibility is to make a new "all about IPFIX" document;
>>    there was only weak consensus for this
>> The meeting reached consensus for (3, rather than 2), we will discuss
>> this further on the IPFIX list.
>>
>> Five drafts were presented as candidates (in addition to the 'Standards
>> upgrade') for an IPFIX re-chartering.
>>
>> Brian Trammell presented 'IPFIX Intermediate Aggregation,' this drew
>> strong consensus as a new WG item.
>>
>> Brian presented the 'IE Doctors' draft, pointing out that this draft
>> "lays out the ground rules for developing new IPFIX Information
>> Elements, and clarifies how the IE Registry process works."  Michelle
>> Cotton (IANA) commented that other working groups, e.g. DNS, have
>> similar processes to those in this draft; we need to be clear about
>> whether we're proposing "approval by IE-Doctors," or changes to
>> "expert review" (which we have now).  Dan commented that to set up a
>> team of IE Doctors, we need AD approval, and must keep IESG informed.
>> Paul Aitken asked (via jabber), whether an IE could be reviewed and
>> not made public until the product is shipped?  Dan replied "we have a
>> body of experience to say that this should be an exception and not the
>> rule."  There was clear consensus for adopting this as a WG item,
>> with one person expressing strong dissent.  We will discuss this
>> further on the list - the issues here are
>> a. Should we develop an 'IE Guidelines' draft?
>> b. Do we want to have an 'IE Doctors' team (with IESG overview),
>>    an expanded group of IE Expert reviewers, or what?
>>
>> Benoit Claise presented the 'IPFIX Mediation protocol' draft, now at
>> version -03.  There was clear consensus for adopting this.
>>
>> Benoit presented 'Exporting MIB variables using IPFIX.'  A spirited
>> discussion of how Odis should be referred to in the IPFIX protocol.
>> There was stronger consensus for this than against it.  Again,
>> discussion of this will continue on the list.
>>
>> Benoit presented 'Exporting Application Information,' prompting
>> considerable discussion.  Steven Campbell commented that
>> "vendor-specific labels for layer-7 mapping is difficult. However, the
>> way to discover layer 7 (behavioral, DPI) could be standardized."
>> Benoit said he wasn't proposing this as a WG item, however anyone
>> interested should continue discussing this topic on the list.
>>
>> The meeting finished at 1459.
>>
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
>> Phone: [phone] x88941             The University of Auckland
>> FAX: [phone]   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> --
> Lothar Braun
> Chair for Network Architectures and Services (I8)
> Department of Informatics
> Technische Universität München
> Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany
> Phone:  [phone]       Fax: [phone]
> E-mail: [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix