Re: [ipfix] PROPOSED list of WG items for new charter

[Paul Aitken <[e-mail]>]

Nevil,

In my mind, and without prejudice to any of the authors or all their 
hard work so far, the IPFIX drafts fall into three groups:


1. Mature drafts, which can be completed soon and should be targetted 
for immediate completion:

    draft-boschi-ipfix-implementation-guidelines-01
    draft-boschi-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-01
    draft-schmoll-ipfix-testing-00

    draft-kobayashi-ipfix-concentrator-mib-01
	- this should be worked under the IPFIX MIB


2. Drafts which still require some work and should be targetted for phase 2:

    draft-dressler-ipfix-aggregation-02
    draft-bclaise-ipfix-reliability-01
    draft-trammel-ipfix-biflow-00
    draft-kobayashi-ipfix-concentrator-model-01


3. Drafts whose value I'm unconvinced of:

    draft-trammel-ipfix-file-00
    draft-stephan-isp-templates-01


> In our new charter, I propose that we take on the following as
> WG items (estimated delivery times in parenthises):
> 
> 1. IPFIX Implementation Guidelines draft, to be an Informational RFC
>       (6 months)
> 2. IPFIX Testing draft, to be an Informational RFC  (6 months)
> 3. IPFIX MIB, to be an Informational RFC (12 months)

And later you added:

> IPFIX Reducung Reduncy, to be an Informational RFC  (6 months)

I'm happy with these.


> 4  IPFIX Biflow draft, to be an Informational RFC (6 months)

In my opinion, biflow isn't sufficiently mature to be completed in 6 
months, even if it's possible to do biflow on a single box at all. I 
would prefer to see it in a second phase.


One final point: many of these drafts call for new Information Elements.

Do you feel that the processes for requesting, reviewing and approving 
new IE's have been clearly communicated to the WG?

Cheers.
-- 
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.

--
Help        mailto:[e-mail] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[e-mail] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/