Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

[Paul Aitken <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>