IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 18 November 2011 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA9B1F0C74 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:00:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUT9vOMQ+Krj for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-jap.cisco.com (skinny-sumo.cisco.com [64.104.15.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050FF1F0C40 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from sumo.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-jap.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAI50dLw021639; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:00:39 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [10.75.233.176] (hkidc-vpn-client-233-176.cisco.com [10.75.233.176]) by sumo.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAI50X4O011262; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:00:35 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4EC5E671.8040005@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:00:33 +0800
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
References: <20111117041857.GA25801@elstar.local> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640301A26B@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <988EAE3D-D019-4B7C-92EB-A6780DA3D376@asgaard.org> <20111117064742.GB26328@elstar.local> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640301A290@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <20111117071144.GG26328@elstar.local> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640301A2E6@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640301A2E6@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl@asgaard.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:00:45 -0000

On 17/11/2011 15:41, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>> One more example: Look at section 4.3 Accounting Management providing
>> a list of different IPFIX information elements. Is that the level of
>> detail you find appropriate? How many of the information elements
>> listed there do you think are important for Accounting Management? Do
>> you propose to have the IEs listed as well in sections 4.1 Fault
>> Management, 4.4 Performance Management, and 4.5 Security Management?
> I tend to agree that the IPFIX IEs are not needed in this level of
> detail.
> Benoit promised to provide an update.
Yes, I agree too. Let me revisit this section (can't do before end of 
next week)

Regards, Benoit.
>
> Mehmet
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email