[IPFIX] DRAFT minutes for Monday's IPFIX meeting

[Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]>]

Hi all:

Here are my **DRAFT** minutes, please send me your comments/improvements
/suggestions.

Cheers, Nevil


Brief summary:  IPFIX WG meeting in Berlin

Our Link Layer Attributes and IPFIX Mediation Protocol drafts will be
submitted this month (August).

Extended Field Specifiers look really useful, we could use them for
exporting MIB Objects, We must choose between implementing EFSF (which
would need a charter update) first, or using a mibFieldOption Template
so as to finish the Exporting MIB Objects draft.  Both, of course,
will require changes to IPFIX collectors.

There are several new drafts that could be WG items.  These need to have
objectives that could not be achieved by just registering new IEs via
IANA/IE Doctors.


Minutes of the IPFIX meeting at IETF 87 in Berlin
About 36 people present, plus 6 on jabber
Scribes: Paul Aitken (on Etherpad at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/minutes)
   and Chris Innacio
Meeting chairs: Nevil Brownlee, Juergen Quittek

Juergen opened the meeting, and gave the IPFIX status update:
- IPFIX Protocol, 5101bis
     approved as Internet Standard, 17 Jul 13

Nevil Brownlee presented the Link Layer IEs draft:
- Kobayashi-san has made changes as suggested by Pat Thaler in
   Orlando.  She has reviewed the new version, and reported that
   she will send Kobayashi-san a list detailing a few more needed
   changes.
= After that the draft will be ready to submit.

Brian Trammell presented the IPFIX Mediation Protocol draft:
= -06 version to be published shortly, now ready for WGLC

Paul Aitken presented the MIB Variable Export draft:
- mibFieldOption proposed as alternative to Extended Field Specifiers (EFSF)
- Brian Trammell: this is backwards compatible with current IPFIX
- Juergen Quittek: but it adds an extra level of lookup in collectors
- Benoit Claise: would like to compare EFSF vs option templates
= This needs more discussion on the list

Paul presented "IPFIX Extensions"
- These must solve real problems, i.e. have real use cases
- EFSF would support many use cases that would otherwise need many new
   IEs, e.g. Unobserved Fields, MIB OIDs.
- Johan Kogel: likes it, but it may end up duplication some IEs
- Agreement that using Option Templates to extend IEs is inelegant,
   but we already do it a lot, e.g. RFC 6313 (structured data)
- Paul: it's orthogonal to the 'Option Templates' approach

Abdelkader Lahmadi presented 'Metering Process Location'
- A set of IEs for specifying host location
- Could use EFSF, but need to know times when location changed
- Peng Fan: doesn't want to install IPFIX on his mobile 'phone
= Continue discussion on list

Toerless Eckert presented 'Signaling Flow Characteristics'
- Making a set of IEs that Applications can use to export
   information about their flows
- How many IEs?  ~20 to 30
= Discuss this idea with IE Doctors

Ramki Krishnan presented 'Flow-Aware Packet Sampling'
- The draft has been extensively revised since Orlando
= Its aims could be achieved by registering this as a new
   sampling technique, i.e. value of the flowSelectorAlgorithm
   IE.

There was no Other Business.

The Chairs reminded the WG that
- We need to consider IPFIX Extensions - i.e. EFSF - carefully,
   and reach consensus on a new charter item to work on it
- Any other proposals for new work need to solve a real problem,
   and require something more than changes to the IE Registry

The meeting finished at 1137

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: [phone] x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: [phone]   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand