Re: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideration issues
Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu> Fri, 01 July 2011 07:43 UTC
Return-Path: <Quittek@neclab.eu>
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 E711A21F8833 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 62cKz8adAFDR for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE20721F882B for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A4828000231 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:43:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWmfO0jAtf7w for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:43:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (ENCELADUS.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C108828000226 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:43:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Polydeuces.office.hd ([169.254.3.5]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:43:18 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <Quittek@neclab.eu>
To: IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideration issues
Thread-Index: Acw2UTDP4s1AG749R2qYS+FDccCBuABcVcUV
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:43:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CA334731.16D95%quittek@neclab.eu>
In-Reply-To: <75581E268A48F849916117B977D76D372CC427D7@Polydeuces.office.hd>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.10.0.110428
x-originating-ip: [10.1.2.219]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <64033F34472B6B4AA6D8B18C327A8959@office.hd>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideration issues
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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:43:25 -0000
Dear all, I support Thomas' request. Currently, we have a registry at IANA at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaipfixselector-mib As you can see if you click the link, there the entire MIB module is maintained by IANA. This implies that if we want to add a new selector function, then the MIB module will be modified and implementers need replace older versions. This is not what was really intended by the authors of the RFC 5815 (IPFIX MIB). The die was rather having IANA maintain a a registry for just NUMBERS of selector functions that would be appended to OID ipfixSelectorFunctions, as it is commonly done for smi-numbers at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers So the IANA action that we need is - remove the registry of the IPFIX-SELECTOR-MIB - instead create a new entry at the smi-numbers registry for the prefix ipfixSelectorFunctions There we would then add the selector functions defined in the PSAMP-MIB and potential further MIB modules. Please send your comments if you have questions or disagree with this proposal. Note that if we do so, we would need to run IETF last call for the PSAMP-MIB again, because this is a significant change to the document. My proposal would be to discuss it on the mailing list now and have a final discussion at the IPFIX session in Quebec. Thanks, Juergen Am 29.06.11 13:58 schrieb "Thomas Dietz" unter <Thomas.Dietz@neclab.eu>: > Dear all, > > in the course of editing the PSAMP MIB draft we identified that the IANA > Considerations in RFC 5815 (the IPFIX MIB RFC) do not make sense. Putting > the whole IPFIX SELECTOR MIB under IANA control and creating a registry > hereof is not what we need here. > > I propose to change that and only put up a registry that registers the OIDs > of the subtrees under the ipfixSelectorFunctions OID. Each subtree -- as > described in the RFC -- represents a Selector Function and its parameters > (in a table). So the root of the subtree (i.e. its OID) has to be registered > in the new registry. In addition the document where this subtree is defined > has to be registered. The review process setup in RFC5815 can remain as it > is. > > Implementing this change needs -- according to our ADs -- an updated > RFC5815. > > Please comment on this issue. Any feedback is welcome. > > Best Regards, > > Thomas
- [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideration is… Thomas Dietz
- Re: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideratio… Juergen Quittek
- Re: [IPFIX] RFC5815 (IPFIX MIB) IANA Consideratio… Benoit Claise