Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-05.txt

Gerhard Muenz <muenz@net.in.tum.de> Mon, 05 November 2012 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <muenz@net.in.tum.de>
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 C5BF421F845A for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:58:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yX3RNrMrC4qg for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B69321F8459 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:58:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.36] (g229138014.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.229.138.14]) by mail.net.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EDC218EB88D; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:58:29 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50981A52.2050104@net.in.tum.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:58:10 +0100
From: Gerhard Muenz <muenz@net.in.tum.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <506CBFE3.10607@auckland.ac.nz> <5090547C.5020803@cisco.com> <F37F4EC6-E7AB-4975-93A7-82B7CDCD13EF@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5091271E.3050206@cisco.com> <68907E1B-1D38-4F3A-B0E0-F47628F989F0@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <50913BF3.2080408@cisco.com> <8ED0D683-536C-46B6-8E5A-3CC3B7CB678F@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5091422B.9070607@cisco.com> <48C58B9E-EE52-415D-896F-AA15F8B7A6C4@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5092AE87.6040400@cisco.com> <BE38C2E3-78A9-42A2-9214-45CD5819E790@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <BE38C2E3-78A9-42A2-9214-45CD5819E790@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-information-model-rfc5102bis-05.txt
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: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:58:33 -0000

Hi Paul, Brian,

>> So, how about "A delta counter only counts observations made since the previous Flow Record (if any) for a given Flow."

This statement seems sufficiently clear and sufficiently flexible.
For example, as I understand it, it does not imply that all observations 
since the previous Flow Record must be counted. Some observations might 
get lost or omitted on purpose. Also, at some time, the next interval 
will end, so the following observations are not counted. Also, it does 
not imply that the Flow Record is actually exported.

Regards,
Gerhard