Re: [OPSAWG] A proposal on draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 05 October 2015 20:17 UTC
Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DD41B4F94 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E68600lAbVgH for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F5941B4F93 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD08EE7C; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.220]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id p9eWhNn3Dwtk; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EC320053; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXIdnLUr4wZL; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D7E2004E; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id F3340377D94B; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:17:45 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:17:45 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Wayne Tackabury <wtackabury@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20151005201743.GA38729@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Wayne Tackabury <wtackabury@us.ibm.com>, opsawg@ietf.org, paitken@brocade.com
References: <201510052001.t95K1Xhu008944@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201510052001.t95K1Xhu008944@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/QHhcNSPd82PrKv9sqhJpa3A7bS0>
Cc: paitken@brocade.com, opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] A proposal on draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 20:17:54 -0000
Wayne, I agree that having a well-defined low-complexity mechanism to indicate that certain values are missing would be valuable. I know that some exporters simple report 0 for fields they have no value for and this is really bad (unless 0 has been specifically reserved for this purpose). So I support work in this space but I won't have much time to be involved. PS: We had a similar problem in SNMP land where agents reported 0 for counters they did not support and it has been effort to convince people to not report values for object instances that do not have a value; part of the problem were poorly written SNMP managers that could not deal with missing values. A good solution will be incrementally deployable, allowing those who care to do the right thing and those who prefer to not care to stay simple minded about null values (until they start to care). On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 08:00:51PM +0000, Wayne Tackabury wrote: > Hi all: > > In work we are doing here, we have found rather compelling value, to put > it mildly, in the scope and techniques which are covered in a draft which > was submitted to the now-closed IPFIX working group, > draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields. Its latest manifestation (as a > -.03 rev) is to be found at > [1]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields/. > > This was submitting when the wg was in its closing throes. HIstory from > the list was unearthed by Paul Aitken indicating that the draft has value, > but had not yet received sufficient list commentary to move forward, at > the exact moment that wg closure was sought. > > I have reached out to that original author and the wg chair, Benoit > Claise, who is an active member of this area wg as well of course. Benoit > recommended that in the current state of the IPFIX wg, that I approach > this area wg with an interest in revival and refinement of this draft > (which I am willing to particpate in), with an eye towards its eventual > elevation to be a companion to the other Proposed Standard RFCs produced > by the IPFIX WG. > > It is in that spirit I submit this post, I hope my protocol of approach is > in order. If there is another viable strategy for elevation of this draft > than wg reactivation, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > > Wayne Tackabury > IBM Security Systems > > > References > > Visible links > 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aitken-ipfix-unobserved-fields/ > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
- [OPSAWG] A proposal on draft-aitken-ipfix-unobser… Wayne Tackabury
- Re: [OPSAWG] A proposal on draft-aitken-ipfix-uno… Juergen Schoenwaelder