Hello Kathleen,
Today we've uploaded the new revision
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-10
This document takes into the account the review comments (minus one
technical issue that is outside of the authors' control).
Please let us know whether the new changes adequately addresses the
review comments.
Many thanks!
--a
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
Hi Paul,
In that case, please update the abstract and introduction to make the intent of
the document clear. It would be helpful
for the reader to understand the intent as they start reading the document.
The discussion referenced was posted to [email protected]. I think folks are
addressing that discussion, so there is no need
for me to jump into it. Here is a link that should pull up all the messages on
this draft in the last month across all
mailing lists:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=yourtchenko&qdr=m
Best regards,
Kathleen
From: Paul Aitken [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 4:17 PM
To: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09
Kathleen, All,
Apologies for jumping in here, but I wasn't privvy to the earlier discussion to
which you allude.
Summary: This draft extends RFC3954, but is specific to Cisco.
No, this draft does not extend RFC 3954.
RFC 3954 specifies the NFv9 Protocol and the associated Information Model. The
model is extensible, and I own the
netflow-police hat for reviewing, approving, and actioning NFv9 extensions.
The IPFIX Protocol (RFC 7011) has its own Information Model (RFC 7012, IANA)
which is also extensible upon application to
IANA, subject to expert review by IE-doctors (RFC 7013).
The yourtchenko-cisco-ies draft extends the IPFIX Information model. Per section 6 of the
draft, "IANA Considerations":
This document specifies several new IPFIX Information Elements in the
IPFIX Information Element registry
The IPFIX Information Model was initially based upon the NFv9 Information
Model. Indeed, the two are generally considered
to be synonymous.
The extensions which are being added to the IPFIX model seek to retain that
synonymity by describing NFv9 elements which
were not known or defined at the time RFC 3954 was written. These can be
adopted into the IPFIX Information Model to
retain compatibility, rather than defining equivalent IPFIX elements with
different IDs from NFv9 and thus complicating
life for every netflow collector.
Note that this is not a change to either the NFv9 or IPFIX protocols.
P.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
