Re: [sip-clf] Extend Charter to Include IPFIX streaming?

Hi Peter,

It seems like a good idea/compromise to me.

I remember Daryl's draft about performance metrics that went all over 
the place because every WG said: "not in my yard!"
He started in which date? Answered at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-malas-performance-metrics-00 to finally 
end up in PMOL, and it's just almost over.

It seems so easy for me to simply to update the SIPCLF charter, to add 
the item, to get it done with the same people/interest and at the same 
time as the ASCII file... and to move on.

Regards, Benoit.
> All,
>
> As discussed in the consensus call to choose ASCII thread, there was agreement that IPFIX was not motivated to log into files.
>
> Is there interest in this group extending it's charter to allow the IPFIX streaming work to be specified here?
>
> I wanted to get a sense for this before embarking on specific charter text changes.
>
> As I see it the IPFIX work is well known by this group and makes reference to the data model specified here.
>
> I would see two work items:
> - specification of and IANA registration for elements to be logged (all are in the current problem statement)
> - a doc which indicates how signalling flows can be linked with existing data flows already reported with IPFIX mechanisms (this might just be an addition to the existing doc)
>
> Speaking personally, I think it makes sense to continue the discussion with this group and avoid the admin overhead of creating another one via dispatch.
>
> We have a group of IPFIX contributors who have shown their continued willingness to do the work necessary to make this happen (and in fact the first work item has seen lots of work, and two implementations are known to exist).
>
> Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Musgrave
> (as co-chair)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf