Re: [IPFIX] basicList clarification

[Gerald Naveen A <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the responses. It clarifies for most part; while I would also
like to clarify few things on my question. (tagged [Gerald] inline)

So it appears we would need to define Y as IE and mark X as basicList of Y.

Thanks again

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Paul Aitken <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gerald,
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is my understanding from the RFCs that basicList type is an encoding
> for list of IPFIX Information Elements.
>
>
> Yes, where the list contains zero or more instances of a single IE.
>
>
> To create the template much more strongly typed, we have defined a custom
> (enterprise) Information Element with a new ID (say X), which is defined as
> a basicList of specific items (eg., InterfaceName).
>
> My question to you all is: Is it mandatory that we have a separate
> information element called InterfaceName (say ID Y) and define X as a
> basicList of Y ?
>
>
> Yes, that's how the protocol is defined.
>
>
> For our need, it is enough for us, that we define X as a basicList of
> string (as X is already strongly defined). But string is a type, not info
> element.
>
> We would like to retain X (instead of defining a template directly with a
> standard basicList). And we don't have any other need to define a new
> Information Element Y.
>
>
> Y defines the list elements which tells the Collector that the list
> contains strings, and it defines the semantics of those strings - eg
> whether they contain interface names, user names, a list of selectorNames,
> or a list of Application names. Then a basicList of Y tells the Collector
> that you're exporting zero or more of them.
>
[Gerald] This is definitely a choice. However, as I mentioned, this makes
the template weakly typed (ie., the element is just #291 basicList). We
would like to enforce stronger types at the template itself (this was the
motive behind defining X)

>
> Perhaps you should define Y as a single instance of X (so Y is well
> defined), then redefine X as a basicList of Y. Or if you don't want/need to
> define both X and Y, then use the basicList IE #291 to export a basicList
> of (strongly defined) Y.
>
[Gerald] Yes, this is also a choice; but we don't need Y for any other
reason except to fit into the basicList detail. So wanted to know if that
can be avoided. I got my answer: No (if strongly typed templates).

>
> I realize that the basicList encoding has a information-element ID of the
> item in payload -- is this mandatory?
>
>
> Yes. The encoding would not be interoperable without it.
>
>
> Or for a strongly typed item X, we could expect the IPFIX parser to be
> aware of contents (interface name) by contract?
>
>
> No. Every collector which implements RFC 6313 (IPFIX Structured Data)
> should be able to decode a basicList of Y. However, the mechanism which you
> propose requires the collector to have special knowledge of the internals
> of X, which is not scalable. In short, such an Exporter would not be
> interoperable with all Collectors.
>
[Gerald] X is not a different encoding. X is a basicList (sort of more
strongly typed. ie., X is a basicList of Y). So the encoding is just the
same as #291 standard basicList. But when the template declares a element
as X, it is clearly typed even without having to look into the data (or it
also doesn't let the exporter send X of Z on the same template).


> P.
>
>
> Pls let me know if my question is unclear.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> - Gerald Naveen
>
>
>
> The custom IE which you've defined must contain meta-data about the list
> such as an element count, element lengths, delimiters or separators. It
> creates a new way of encoding list information which the collector must
> also understand in addtion to the basicList encoding, which is not useful.
> In short, you should not create list type elements; instead, use the
> basicList mechanism.
>
[Gerald] Agree. We aren't trying to redefine basicList encoding for sure.

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>
>
>