[IPFIX] Questions about compliance statement in IPFIX-selection-techniqes draft

Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz> Wed, 22 May 2013 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
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 4CA5D21F930A for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ME0slWdygN0D for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.auckland.ac.nz (mx2.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.125.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A733221F92CB for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 19:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1369188802; x=1400724802; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=8BxYtOnm+/dZRVJyjysXPNBIb7eZMgKagckjaPj5cfY=; b=Cbcg2JNTQQSLEEfNRNjPnMlvJ54+DV7kqwxiAnZU53ckfxLD63M2Mob4 JvtEyo35hoDff25mBLQbiENdiCSTJE3MUc7WoK8u7UYKePi6yer8QUsHY /So+12rRIco8xUy4BW46pLQdozZST6aDSleenoZNa1vL2bGa6PM287bRp s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,718,1363086000"; d="scan'208";a="188192153"
X-Ironport-HAT: UNIVERSITY - $RELAY-THROTTLE
X-Ironport-Source: 130.216.38.131 - Outgoing - Outgoing-SSL
Received: from nevil-laptop1.sfac.auckland.ac.nz (HELO [130.216.38.131]) ([130.216.38.131]) by mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP; 22 May 2013 14:13:19 +1200
Message-ID: <519C29BE.8050001@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:13:18 +1200
From: Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [IPFIX] Questions about compliance statement in IPFIX-selection-techniqes draft
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: Wed, 22 May 2013 02:13:27 -0000

Hi all:

draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-16 is now in IESG Evaluation;
it currently has a blocking DISCUSS

Section 6.1 contains a compliance statement, which says
   "In order to be compliant with this document, at least the
    Property Match Filtering MUST be implemented."
The AD concerned asks whether we could remove this requirement.

This was triggered by a remark in my Shepherd statement for this draft,
which said
   "This draft raised IPR concerns, in the same manner as the PSAMP
   selection draft had done.  Nick Duffield (AT&T) commented that
   the AT&T IPR claim relates only to statistical sampling, and PSAMP
   handled this by saying "at least on of the sampling techniques
   must be implemented."
   In this draft, we have tightened that up a little by saying
   "a conforming implementation MUST implement at least the
   Property Match Filtering."
I realise now that the IPR in question was that relating to
draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing, which was discussed
on the IPFIX list back in Feb/Mar 2013; the issue that raised was
cleared by the company concerned making an IPR declaration.

That leaves us with the question about the compliance requirement.
The motivation for this remains the same as it was for RFC 5475,
"Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection,"
the statement in section 6.1 simply refines it a little, and makes it
clear to implementors what's needed for a minimal conforming
implementation.

So now, I need some feedback from the WG.  Please send a note to
the list saying
"yes, keep the compliance statement in section 6.1" or
"no, delete the compliance statement in section 6.1.

Real soon now, please!

Cheers, Nevil



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand