Dear Mehmet,
Thank you for forwarding this e-mail. I have not subscribed to the
OPSAWG mailing list. So maybe, you need to forward my reply.
Together with Benoir and Paul, I was the main author of RFC 6728. For
many years, however, I have neither been involved in IETF
standardization nor in IPFIX/PSAMP activities. Therefore, I do not feel
in a position to provide a complete review of the draft as an IPFIX
expert. Nevertheless, I have a brief look at it and can share a few
comments.
The main challenge of RFC 6728 was to create a configuration data model
that covers all the metering and protocol features specified in the
other PSAMP/IPFIX RFCs, and to also fit to the IPFIX MIB. We had long
discussions to clarify and differentiate the functionality of each
abstract functional block of an IPFIX Device (e.g. Metering Process,
Exporting Process). So, it is good that the new draft does not reinvent
the wheel but adopts the original configuration data model with only a
few changes.
Most of the proposed changes of the original configuration data model
shall facilitate extensions of the model for other use cases of the
IPFIX protocol. The second contribution is the addition of bulk data
export parameters to the model. If I understand correctly, bulk data
transfer with IPFIX has not been standardized by IETF.
It would be possible to split the draft into two parts: (1) a revision
of RFC 6728 covering the original scope of configuration (IPFIX/PSAMP
Devices) including the changes to facilitate extensions for other use
cases, and (2) a new draft with the specific extension for bulk data
export (if IETF wants to standardize this).
Maybe, such a split would make it clear that bulk data export is not an
IPFIX/PSAMP feature standardized by IETF.
Some further comments:
- RFC 7011 requires PR-SCTP for all compliant IPFIX devices. Therefore,
the part is mandatory in configuration data model of RFC 6728. If we
make SCTP optional, this would possibly reflect reality much better -
but there would be a mismatch to RFC 7011.
- The Exporting Process does not influence the generation of Data
Records, it may only throttle the speed of sending them in IPFIX packets
(or drop in case of congestion). The proposed new parameter
"export-interval" seems to refer to the generation of Data Records and
therefore should not be configured as part of the Exporting Process, but
as part of the process that generates the bulk data.
- I am not aware of any implementation of RFC 6728. It would be good to
know whether there are any (possibly from Cisco, the main driver of
IPFIX), and to get feedback from there.
Best regards,
Gerhard
On 01.12.2019 20:13, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
I think this draft should be reviewed and commented by OPSAWG WG before
publishing as "AD sponsored standard track RFC" obsoleting RFC 6728.
(RFC 6728 authors CCed).
BR,
Mehmet
-Original Message-
From: OPS-DIR On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue via
Datatracker
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 7:33 PM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org;
draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model@ietf.org
Subject: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call partial review of
draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02
Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.
Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
Review result: Not Ready
I reviewed the document "YANG Data Models for the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) Protocol, Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol, and Bulk Data Export
(draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model-02) as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit
of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: I-D Exists
Summary:
The document aims to replace the YANG model for packet sampling (PSAMP) and
bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol originally defined in
standard track RFC 6728 (Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols). The YANG
data model in the document also aims to be conform with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. FYI: The YANG
model is currently in review by Martin Bjorklund from YANG modeling
perspective.
The document further aims to decouple the PSAMP collecting process and the
IPFIX exporting process as well as defining an exporting process which does
not require SCTP support. The document tries to enable the export frequency
to be controlled by the exporting process, support of large IPFIX mediation
functions, and flexible referencing of interfaces. The new functionality
described above and the necessary restructuring of the model in RFC 6728
might become useful if done properly
