Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-boschi-ipfix-exporting-type-00.txt]

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:36:28 -0400

Shane,

Hmm... I agree that requiring a second template here can in certain  
circumstances be less than efficient, though in general we as a  
working group seem to recommend not exporting NULLs. However, in this  
case, we _do_ have a perfectly valid null value. So, how about  
splitting the difference - recommending that no  
privateEnterpriseNumber be present when exporting information about  
IANA IEs, but allowing a 0 valued privateEnterpriseNumber to be used  
to represent them? See the paragraph at the top of page 8 of draft- 
ietf-ipfix-biflow-05 for a similar issue, and how we chose to resolve  
it.

Regards,

Brian

On Sep 7, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Shane Alcock wrote:

> Brian, Paul, all
>
> Just a quick comment (included inline):
>
> Brian Trammell wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3.8.  privateEnterpriseNumber
>>>
>>>       If the Enterprise ID bit of the
>>>       corresponding Information Element is cleared (has the value  
>>> 0),
>>>       this IE should be set to 0.
>>>
>>> No; it shouldn't exist since an IE that's set to zero isn't the   
>>> same
>>> as an IE that's not there - unless the IE is specifically   
>>> defined to
>>> use zero as an out-of-band not-applicable or unknown  indication.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I think the right thing to do here is to define the type
>> options template to not include the privateEnterpriseNumber if the
>> Enterprise ID bit is not set.
>>
> What happens when you want to provide type records for both IEs that
> have a private enterprise number and IEs that don't? Do you have to
> define a separate options template for each? It would be much nicer if
> there was a way to say "This information element falls within the
> standard set of IPFIX information elements" as you would only need to
> define the one options template (leaving aside the fact that there are
> several other "optional" IEs in the template).
>
> I think IEs that are being treated as optional within pre-defined  
> option
> templates still need some way of saying the equivalent to "not
> applicable" for any particular record. I don't think it's enough to  
> say
> that there is no obligation to include them in your template.
>
> Shane

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:36:28 -0400

Shane,

Regards,

Brian

---

From: Shane Alcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:24:10 +1200

Brian, Paul, all

Brian Trammell wrote:

>>       corresponding Information Element is cleared (has the value 0),
>> No; it shouldn't exist since an IE that's set to zero isn't the  same
>> as an IE that's not there - unless the IE is specifically  defined to

I think IEs that are being treated as optional within pre-defined option
templates still need some way of saying the equivalent to "not
applicable" for any particular record. I don't think it's enough to say
that there is no obligation to include them in your template.

Shane

---

From: Shane Alcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:24:10 +1200

Brian, Paul, all

Shane