Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

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. 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