Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

[Juergen Quittek <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IPFIX [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli
> Sent: Montag, 10. Februar 2014 16:47
> To: Brian Trammell; Paul Aitken
> Cc: [e-mail]; Nevil Brownlee; IPFIX Working Group; ipfix-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London
> 
> On 2/10/14, 7:31 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
> > There are a couple of questions here: (1) do we close / lay dormant /
> > recharter the working group (and what do we do with these two drafts)?
> > and (2) do we have a meeting in London?
> 
> > From my point of view I can say that both drafts are important, have
> > clearly had a good deal of discussion, and are probably at this point
> > of a quality that they could be adopted as WG items. We had an idea in
> > Vancouver that further work could be AD sponsored if the IPFIX WG
> > closed. Recent experience in trying to AD sponsor other IPFIX-related
> > drafts were not appreciated by the IESG, so I don't think that's an
> > option for these two.
> 
> Was not appreciated by some members of the IESG. under the
> circumstances and for the document in question I think the method applied
> was entirely apprpiate and that the results will speak for themselves.

As far as I understood this issue, it was not appreciated by all IESG members, because there still was an IPFIX WG in place. If IPFIX is closed, I do not see how they could still have any problem.
    Juergen

> > OPSAWG would be an option, but only if we definitively close IPFIX
> > (otherwise the question is "why not recharter IPFIX").
> >
> > Separate is the meeting-in-London question. At least here I can say I
> > will not attend the currently-scheduled IPFIX meeting in London as it
> > conflicts with a BoF I'm co-chairing; we've already tried to
> > de-conflict this with no luck.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On 10 Feb 2014, at 11:32, Paul Aitken <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ IPFIX
> mailing list
> >> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> >
>