Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E03A1A05D7 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:22:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 YG5MVLFISArO for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2384D1A0407 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:22:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392067345; x=1393276945; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vDj7HW0OeNDkLCPaIZuxpQuNP6mzTRUVXmVPr/sik/M=; b=UfTFWmDqF0wk4ul7rzNfy2gRpy2yQTxV40G87PURYGCx2QQSrc4Cs5K/ 2CEtOAryVeKZlmWhzprdbcH9V5zsCPO9+ezlxfjd7mO+UVDMDffSo+PpS XA8JNPDiwqddljpAOFAbOkeKhN+OVlGLrve0xv94oZSjdicd98O3A5sAQ 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,820,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="105352852"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2014 21:22:24 +0000
Received: from [10.154.204.28] ([10.154.204.28]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1ALMKJT012179; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:22:23 GMT
Message-ID: <52F9430C.3040909@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:22:20 -0800
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>, Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, Andrew Feren <andrewf@plixer.com>, IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
References: <52EF4E92.3040906@auckland.ac.nz> <52EF71FA.3090005@cisco.com> <52F80BCA.2030408@auckland.ac.nz> <52F8AAB5.5050604@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F8AAB5.5050604@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ipfix-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ipfix-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ipfix-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 10 Feb 2014 21:22:27 -0000

On 10/02/2014 02:32, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Nevil,
>
>> Hi Paul, Andrew and IPFIXers:
>>
>> Looking back at the IPFIX minutes for IETF-88 (Vancouver), we
>> said that "the WG will close when the current charter items are
>> complete."  The only remaining charter item is the MIB Variable
>> Export draft, current version is -03, 21 Oct 2013.  It's
>> disappointing that we haven't seen a revision of that draft in 2014;
>> when we have a new version, we should be able to start its WGLC.
>
> We're working on the next version.
>
>
>> Paul and Andrew were the only two who responded to my 2 Feb email.
>> Neither of the the two drafts they mentioned have been updated
>> since January 2014,
>
> Oh come on Nevil! One's dated Dec 27th, the other Dec 31st. How fresh 
> do they need to be?
>
> So I have these two drafts which I believe are important to IPFIX, and 
> an independent second-opinion concurs. How can these drafts be 
> progressed?
>
>
>> and there's been no discussion of them on the IPFIX list.
>
> I've presented these ideas in previous WG meetings, where the 
> consensus was to wait for the next re-charter.
Consensus, sure?
I checked the meeting minutes and I don't see that.
What I recall is that two different proposals were discussed 
(draft-aitken-ipfix-equivalent-ies and draft-inacio-ipfix-penie-00), 
with no clear winner.

Regards, Benoit

> I'm sure they've been discussed on-list too.
>
>
> P.
>
>
>> The same goes for the Cisco IEs draft, current version -09, 15 Jan 2014.
>>
>> Therefore, IPFIX will not hold a formal meeting in London, I'll
>> inform the secretariat that we're cancelling the IPFIX meeting.
>>
>> Going forward from this ...
>>
>> - of course we can have an informal get-together of IPFIX people
>>   in London - any volunteers to organise such a gathering?
>>
>> - the IPFIX mailing list will remain open for quite some time,
>>   please use it to discuss anything relevant to IPFIX
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 3/02/14 11:39 PM, Paul Aitken wrote:
>>> Nevil,
>>>
>>> I updated a couple of drafts. If the WG is to close, then I'll be
>>> looking for a new home for these, because this is important work which
>>> does need addressed:
>>>
>>>
>>> aitken-ipfix-equivalent-ies
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aitken-ipfix-equivalent-ies>
>>>
>>>     This document specifies a method for an Exporter to inform a
>>>     Collector of equivalence between different Information Elements, so
>>>     that the Collecting Process can understand the equivalence and be
>>>     enabled to process data across a change of Information Elements,
>>>     which allows a seamless transition from Enterprise-specific to
>>>     IANA-standard elements.
>>>
>>> aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields>
>>>
>>>     This draft discusses several methods for reporting when fields are
>>>     unavailable, reviews the advantages and disadvantage of each, and
>>>     recommends methods which should be used.
>>>     Cisco has already implemented some of the mechanisms in this draft.
>>>
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/02/2014 08:08, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi IPFIXers:
>>>>
>>>> Back when session scheduling for IETF 89 started, I requested a
>>>> slot for IPFIX, "just in case."
>>>>
>>>> Since then the Link-Layer Attributes and Mediation Protocol drafts
>>>> have been sent to the RFC Editor, and the text-adt draft is in WGLC.
>>>>
>>>> We expect a new revision of the MIB Variable export draft shortly,
>>>> so that would be the only agenda item for London.  I feel that
>>>> version can be reviewed and discussed on the IPFIX list, so we
>>>> don't now need to have a formal IPFIX meeting in London.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe that a meeting is needed, please email the list
>>>> telling us what that is, and why we need meeting time for it.
>>>> If I don't see such email(s) within the next week, we'll cancel
>>>> the meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> .
>