Re: [IPFIX] DRAFT IPFIX minutes from IETF 80

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Nevil,

Minor comments, below.

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."  

The guidance regarding the complexity of template handling comes from the fact that nobody implemented template withdrawal or template number reuse, not from SCTP implementation issues.

> Dan Romascanu (our AD) asked for an Interoperation
> Report, Brian says he has one written as an Internet Draft.

On review, the Internet-Draft format of what I have does not meet the form or content of an Implementation Report. I'll do this, but will take a bit longer.

> 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, ... ?
> 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.

"Exporting Aggregated Flow Data with IPFIX", "the aggregation draft", or simply "a9n".

> 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