[IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
ATSUSHI KOBAYASHI <akoba@orange.plala.or.jp> Sun, 25 November 2012 13:41 UTC
Return-Path: <akoba@orange.plala.or.jp>
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 6E85821F8546 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:41:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9UfHzpN-ejte for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from msa04b.plala.or.jp (msa04.plala.or.jp [IPv6:2400:7800:0:5010::4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAFD21F8447 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 05:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (really [114.181.213.69]) by msa04b.plala.or.jp with SMTP id <20121125134113.RQGI16835.msa04b.plala.or.jp@[192.168.1.12]>; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:41:13 +0900
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:41:13 +0900
From: ATSUSHI KOBAYASHI <akoba@orange.plala.or.jp>
To: ATSUSHI KOBAYASHI <akoba@orange.plala.or.jp>, IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121125175952.D64A.C996B02F@orange.plala.or.jp>
References: <20121125175952.D64A.C996B02F@orange.plala.or.jp>
Message-Id: <20121125224113.262B.C996B02F@orange.plala.or.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.61.01 [ja]
X-VirusScan: Outbound; msa04b; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:41:13 +0900
Subject: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:41:25 -0000
Dear all, Nevil, I checked the draft, I found some comments and editorial issue. Please see in-line. Regards, Atsushi > > > > > Network Working Group B. Claise, Ed. > Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. > Obsoletes: 5101 B. Trammell, Ed. > Category: Standards Track ETH Zurich > Expires: May 24, 2013 November 20, 2012 > > > Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol > for the Exchange of Flow Information > draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03 > snip > 1.2. IPFIX Documents Overview > > The IPFIX protocol provides network administrators with access to IP > flow information. The architecture for the export of measured IP > flow information out of an IPFIX Exporting Process to a Collecting > Process is defined in [RFC5470], per the requirements defined in > [RFC3917]. This document specifies how IPFIX data records and > templates are carried via a number of transport protocols from IPFIX > Exporting Processes to IPFIX Collecting Processes. > > Four IPFIX optimizations/extensions are currently specified: a > bandwidth saving method for the IPFIX protocol in [RFC5473], an > > > > <Claise, et al.> Standards Track [Page 5] > > Internet-Draft IPFIX Protocol Specification November 20, 2012 > > > efficient method for exporting bidirectional flow in [RFC5103], a > method for the definition and export of complex data structures in > [RFC6313], and the specification of the Protocol for IPFIX Mediations > [IPFIX-MED-PROTO] based on the IPIFX Mediation Framework [RFC6183]. > > IPFIX has a formal description of IPFIX Information Elements, their > name, type and additional semantic information, as specified in > [RFC5102bis], with the export of the Information Element types > specified in [RFC5610]. > > [IPFIX-CONF] specifies a data model for configuring and monitoring > IPFIX and PSAMP compliant devices using the NETCONF protocol, while > the [RFC5815bis] specifies a MIB module for monitoring. Please replace it within entire document. s/RFC5815bis/RFC6615/ snip > > 2. Terminology > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. snip > Traffic Flow or Flow > > There are several definitions of the term 'flow' being used by the > Internet community. Within the context of IPFIX we use the > following definition: > > A Flow is defined as a set of packets passing an Observation Point Comment#1: Why don't you add "frames" to the above sentence? > in the network during a certain time interval. All packets > belonging to a particular Flow have a set of common properties. > Each property is defined as the result of applying a function to > the values of: > > 1. one or more packet header fields (e.g., destination IP > address), transport header fields (e.g., destination port > number), or application header fields (e.g., RTP header > fields [RFC3550]). > > 2. one or more characteristics of the packet itself (e.g., > number of MPLS labels, etc...). > > 3. one or more of fields derived from packet treatment (e.g., > next hop IP address, the output interface, etc...). > > A packet is defined as belonging to a Flow if it completely > satisfies all the defined properties of the Flow. > > Note that the set of packets represented by a Flow may be empty; > > > snip > 8.2 Sequencing Template Management Actions > > Since there is no guarantee of the ordering of exported IPFIX > Messages across SCTP Streams or over UDP, an Exporting Process MUST > sequence all template management actions (i.e., Template Records > defining new templates and Template Withdrawals withdrawing them) > using the Export Time field in the IPFIX Message Header. > > An Exporting Process MUST NOT export a Data Set described by a new Comment#2: It uses two ways; "defined by a new Template", or "described by a new Template". It prefers one way within entire document. > Template in an IPFIX Message with an Export Time before the Export > Time of the IPFIX Message containing that Template. If a new Template > and a Data Set described by it appear in the same IPFIX Message, the > > > > <Claise, et al.> Standards Track [Page 39] > > Internet-Draft IPFIX Protocol Specification November 20, 2012 > > > Template Set containing the Template MUST appear before the Data Set > in the Message. > > An Exporting Process MUST NOT export any Data Sets described by a > withdrawn Template in IPFIX Messages with an Export Time after the > Export Time of the IPFIX Message containing the Template Withdrawal > withdrawing that Template. > Comment#3: I could not understand the following paragraph. If you want to describe another way, please explain it in more detail. > Put another way, a Template only describes Records contained in IPFIX > Messages with the same Export Time as the IPFIX Message containing > Template Record, or a subsequent export time. Likewise, a Template > Withdrawal is only in effect for IPFIX Messages with the same Export > Time as the Template Withdrawal, or a subsequent Export Time. > > Collecting Processes MAY implement a buffer to handle out-of-order > Template management events. > > 8.3. Additional considerations for Template Management over SCTP > > Template Sets and Options Template Sets MAY be sent on any SCTP > stream. Data Sets sent on a given SCTP stream MAY be represented by > Template Records exported on any SCTP stream. > > Template Sets and Options Template Sets MUST be sent reliably and in > order. > > Template Withdrawal Messages MAY be sent on any SCTP stream. Template > Withdrawal Messages MUST be sent reliably, using SCTP-ordered > delivery. Template IDs MAY be reused by sending a Template Withdrawal > Message and/or a new Template Record on a different SCTP stream than > the stream on which the original Template was sent. > > Additional Template Management considerations are given in [IPFIX- > PER-SCTP-STREAM], which specifies an extension to explicitly link > Templates with SCTP streams. In exchange for more restrictive rules > on the assignment of Template Records to SCTP streams, this extension > allows fast, reliable reuse of Template IDs and estimation of Data > Record loss per Template. > Comment#4: It is hard to understand to sentence "estimation of Data Record loss per Template" in the paragraph.
- [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03 ATSUSHI KOBAYASHI
- Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-… Andrew Feren
- Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-… Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-… Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-… Andrew Feren