Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX errata 2052 to 2059

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:40:56 +0000

Dear all,

Discussion of these errata ended ~ 2 weeks ago. Presumably nobody has 
any objections?

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5477
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5476

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg05314.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg05315.html

Dan, what's the next step? Ideally an update to the IANA registry.

Thanks,
P.

-- 
Paul Aitken
Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Gerhard Muenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:40:29 +0100

Hi Paul,

Still, I have not heard any good arguments why we need to change it to 
unsigned64. Looking at the examples in RFC5476, it seems that the 
original intention was unsigned32. This is inline with 
ipfixSelectionProcessSelectorIndex in IPFIX-MIB.

So, why do you prefer 64bit, which does not only require changes in 
RFC5477, but in RFC5476 as well, and which is inconsistent with IPFIX-MIB?

See also my previous mail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg05311.html

Regards,
Gerhard

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Münz
Chair for Network Architectures and Services (I8)
Technische Universität München - Department of Informatics
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany
Phone:  +49 89 289-18008       Fax: +49 89 289-18033
E-mail: [email-masked]    WWW: http://www.net.in.tum.de/~muenz

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:50:24 +0000

Gerhard,

We agree that unsigned16 selectorID is too small.

Personally, I don't think field sizes should be specified in the info 
model at all, since sizes are specified in the templates. However, 
specifying sizes seems beneficial for collectors and necessary for the MIB.

So our options are to increase the selectorID size to unsigned32 or 
unsigned64.

u32 would help in the short to mid term. However, we can anticipate that 
even this will be too small in future when an observation domain may 
consist of many selectors or when selector Ids are encoded in blocks or 
groups.

If we settled for u32, we could anticipate a future request for u64.

Changing to u64 now seems to provide the greatest long-term flexibility.

Cheers,
P.

---

From: "Thomas Dietz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:39:16 +0100

Dear all,

the only thing I want to add is that we cannot change easily the size of the
Id's in the MIB anyway because Unsigned32 is the biggest value you can get
in SNMP. There is no Unsigned64 defined for it.

Best Regards,

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Dietz                 E-mail: [email-masked]
NEC Europe Ltd.              Phone:  +49 6221 4342-128
NEC Laboratories Europe      Fax:    +49 6221 4342-155
Network Research Division
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
69115 Heidelberg, Germany    http://www.nw.neclab.eu

NEC Europe Limited           Registered in England 2832014
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Aitken
> Sent: Montag, 15. März 2010 12:50
> To: Gerhard Muenz
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX errata 2052 to 2059
> 
> Gerhard,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:20:46 -0700

Hi Gerhard & Paul:

I'm looking through our 'unverified' errata - do we have consensus
for Paul's Errata 2052, i.e. change SelectorId to unsigned64?

Cheers, Nevil

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:58:23 +0000

Nevil,

> for Paul's Errata 2052, i.e. change SelectorId to unsigned64?

The consensus seems to be a change to unsigned32.

Thanks,
P.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:01:27 -0700

Nevil,
> The consensus seems to be a change to unsigned32.
It's true that unsigned64 would have been better, and Thomas highlighted 
a limitation with the MIB.
So let's go for unsigned32 then.

Regards, Benoit.