Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 2/10/14, 7:31 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
> There are a couple of questions here: (1) do we close / lay dormant /
> recharter the working group (and what do we do with these two
> drafts)? and (2) do we have a meeting in London?

> From my point of view I can say that both drafts are important, have
> clearly had a good deal of discussion, and are probably at this point
> of a quality that they could be adopted as WG items. We had an idea
> in Vancouver that further work could be AD sponsored if the IPFIX WG
> closed. Recent experience in trying to AD sponsor other IPFIX-related
> drafts were not appreciated by the IESG, so I don’t think that’s an
> option for these two. 

Was not appreciated by some members of the IESG. under the circumstances
and for the document in question I think the method applied was entirely
apprpiate and that the results will speak for themselves.

> OPSAWG would be an option, but only if we
> definitively close IPFIX (otherwise the question is “why not
> recharter IPFIX”).
> 
> Separate is the meeting-in-London question. At least here I can say I
> will not attend the currently-scheduled IPFIX meeting in London as it
> conflicts with a BoF I’m co-chairing; we’ve already tried to
> de-conflict this with no luck.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Brian
> 
> On 10 Feb 2014, at 11:32, Paul Aitken <[e-mail]> 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. 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 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>