IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3BC21E80B9 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HswWfrgcqhew for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC0121E800F for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.21) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:53:16 -0400
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.197]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.130]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:53:16 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <aakhter@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00
Thread-Index: AQHNDUZTm5pcXpkw0kaR2dMa2rWSPg==
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:53:16 +0000
Message-ID: <E5ADAC3A-CE5C-43A9-9DBF-DDCF472C1022@acmepacket.com>
References: <4F702CF4.4040203@123.org><7EF1B485-21D1-4D3E-9C55-15C327D771C5@acmepacket.com><4F71A577.5000105@voipfuture.com> <90A8412F-65CE-42FB-9BEF-B8BA30C1A0AF@acmepacket.com> <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3D37@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> <13B5187B-06D6-4E44-9E85-D092D3348954@acmepacket.com> <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3DE9@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3DE9@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E5ADAC3ACE5C43A99DBFDDCF472C1022acmepacketcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<ipfix@ietf.org>" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:53:22 -0000

On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:

Based on the feedback from the IPFIX WG itself in one of the
meetings the IE allocation and the methodology were separated and moved
to another WG.

I think the WG may want to reconsider that.  It creates two documents which overlap significantly, except the IANA allocation one is less text with fewer explicit details, while the methodology has the details.  So an implementor would basically need to read both docs anyway, and creating two documents to shepherd/publish is just extra overhead for the submitter, IESG and RFC editor.  What's the real benefit?

This is the diff of the files:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt>

Seems kinda silly, no?
Just my 2 cents, looking at it from the outside.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email