[IPFIX] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt
Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com> Mon, 16 July 2012 22:33 UTC
Return-Path: <paitken@cisco.com>
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 5382421F85D2 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 HWwQYcXFiNMd for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BBA11E8320 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; l=5650; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342478028; x=1343687628; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=s/lqplnFZ6KI0YvkLg/AlNllPEhsLADm1agmEAv9dTE=; b=eRU/467WnZ09R8uJGpLjVxk/98GlbtnjlaUdfP0dnvkoG6A1oJUjLGvH TUHenVA9S/lR/C+/qsZBSm7oD4+AR5jNUNZvOTibO6gn6dvbJxV2S9yGK /bMemoG/r0DO1BiOnoavfqTLP5aDMfQsFrZLjTUpQ61xZ4W+RKjO+R7w1 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFABKWBFCQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABFhWmzZ4EHgiABAQEEEgEQVAENBBwDAQIKFgsCAgkDAgECATsCCAYNBgIBAQUZh2sLnBqNGZMAi0CFNYESA5U7gRKERIhKgWaCYA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,597,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="75341609"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2012 22:33:47 +0000
Received: from [10.61.86.113] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5746.cisco.com [10.61.86.113]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6GMXkFa009025 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:33:47 GMT
Message-ID: <500496CB.7050207@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:33:47 +0100
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
References: <20120716221906.13681.65783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120716221906.13681.65783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120716221906.13681.65783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050306080208070000070800"
Subject: [IPFIX] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt
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: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:33:06 -0000
Dear IPFIXers, In this revision I've added a new section discussing why a "general default value" isn't possible and noted that the ability to indicate Unobserved Fields provides a side benefit of allowing the Metering Process to indicate that it has begun to monitor a new flow but does not yet have anything to export. Also the usual minor clarifications and error corrections. I've received a lot of positive feedback about the need for this mechanism in IPFIX. P. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:19:06 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: paitken@cisco.com A new version of I-D, draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Paul Aitken and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields Revision: 01 Title: Reporting Unobserved Fields in IPFIX Creation date: 2012-07-16 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01 Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields-01 Abstract: The IPFIX protocol is designed to export information about observations, and lacks a method for reporting that observations are unavailable. This document discusses several methods for reporting when fields are unavailable, reviews the advantages and disadvantage of each, and recommends methods which should be used. The IETF Secretariat