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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nevil,

"yes, keep the compliance statement in section 6.1".
I want to keep the consistency to makes it clear to implementors what's 
needed for a minimal conforming
implementation, and to be similar to RFC 5475

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
> 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
>
>
>