RE: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation team draft
"Reinaldo Penno" <rpenno@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 14 November 2002 16:30 UTC
Received: from mil.doit.wisc.edu (mil.doit.wisc.edu [128.104.31.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23572 for <ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:30:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by mil.doit.wisc.edu with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18CMkI-0002sc-00 for ipfix-list@mil.doit.wisc.edu; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:21:34 -0600
Received: from zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com ([47.103.122.112]) by mil.doit.wisc.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18CMkH-0002rp-00 for ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:21:33 -0600
Received: from zsc4c000.us.nortel.com (zsc4c000.us.nortel.com [47.81.138.47]) by zrc2s0jx.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id gAEGL7l16808; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:21:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: by zsc4c000.us.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <VDYB1HVG>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:20:52 -0800
Message-ID: <0A11633F61BD9F40B43ABCC694004F931821C6@zsc3c026.us.nortel.com>
From: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@nortelnetworks.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu
Subject: RE: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation team draft
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:20:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C28BF9.CCA71FDC"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>
Hello Benoit, some answers... -----Original Message----- From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:53 AM To: ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu Subject: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation team draft All, I have 2 coments regarding the following draft http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/net//ipfix/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-eval-00.txt <http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/net//ipfix/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-eval-00.txt > 4.5 Time Synchronization (5.5) LFAP: T CRANE: T IPDR: T NetFlow: P Diameter: T In my draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-eval-netflow-03.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-eval-netflow-03.txt> , I wrote 3.4.5 Time Synchronization (5.5) Total Compliance. The export packet header contains the UTC time of the export packet generation. This header also contains the router sysUpTime at the time of the export packet generation. The UTC time the router booted can therefore be deduced. The flow records contain the flow start and flow end sysUpTime, so that the NetFlow collector can deduce the flow start and flow end UTC time. 5.7 Anonymization (6.7) LFAP: E CRANE: E IPDR: E NetFlow: E Diameter: E In my draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-eval-netflow-03.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-eval-netflow-03.txt> , I wrote 3.5.7 Anonymization (6.6) "The exporting process MAY be capable of anonymizing source and destination IP addresses in flow data before exporting them." Total Compliance. You can export the prefix is you want to and not the specific source and destination IP addresses. From my point of view exporting only the prefix is not considered anonymization. I'm not sure this got into the recent requirements draft, but was the conclusion of some discussions that I actually think (but not posisitive) you were copied. I should put that as a open item.... I would appreciate if those two points above could be changed. BTW, maybe I misunderstood the idea of the evaluation team, but from http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/1000.html <http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/1000.html> 3) Evaluation Team met by teleconference for an hour on Wed 26 June The team was strongly influenced by the MIDCOM WG's recent evaluation effort; the IPFIX process will be similar. a) The team will publish a 'Protocol Advocacy' draft, to be used by the Protocol Advocates in making their submissions to the Evaluation team. b) They will also publish a 'call for IPFIX protocol submissions,' most probably via the IPFIX list, referring to a web page on the IPFIX web site. The call for submissions will set out preconditions (e.g. 'must be documented in an Internet Draft or RFC'), as discussed previously. c) Once all the submissions are in, the team will publish them, and call for comments about them on the IPFIX list. In addition, the team will read all the drafts and form their own opionions of them. d) The team will publish an 'Evaluation' draft, using the same outline as the Protocol Advocacy drafts; this will conclude with a recommendation on which protocol most nearly meets the IPFIX requirements. e) The Evaluation draft will be discussed on the IPFIX list, until we reach WG consensus. From above, you can read "this will conclude with a recommendation on which protocol most nearly meets the IPFIX requirements." And it seems that we miss that part in http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/net//ipfix/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-eval-00.txt <http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/net//ipfix/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-eval-00.txt > . that's because the draft will still got through revisions after the advocates have a chance to comment on the items they find relevant (just like you did), and also after the open requirements that are relevant to the evaluation are closed (e.g. reliability). Only after that we will issue a final recommendation regards, Reinaldo The only exception was in the initial draft from Simon Leinen. But the "conclusion" section was removed in the second version of his draft. Regards, Benoit.
- [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation team… Benoit Claise
- RE: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Simon Leinen
- Re: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Simon Leinen
- Re: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Vamsidhar Valluri
- RE: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Tal Givoly
- Re: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Benoit Claise
- RE: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [ipfix-eval] Some comments on the evaluation … Benoit Claise