Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX IE Doctors

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:09:56 +0000

Brian,

SInce IANA is _the_ repository, that's the place where people will be 
copying IPFIX IEs from.

So that's the place where the "not recommended" status should be recorded.

It shouldn't be in a separate wiki, nor in an RFC, since we know that 
people are lazy and don't look in multiple places.

The status could be "not recommended", "discouraged" or "disapproved".

Or convince the originator of how to export the information correctly, 
and mark the IE as deprecated.

P.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:22:04 +0100

This approach may be problematic. What you say is that we now have three
states for the IEs in the IANA repository - 'recommended', 'not
recommended' (or similar) and 'deprecated'. While I believe that this
may be useful I do not think that this kind of information is
appropriate for an IANA registry. If we end by taking it we need also to
define the criteria of changing between the stated, so the whole state
machine becomes more complicated. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Paul Aitken
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: Brian Trammell
> Cc: IETF IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: [IPFIX] IPFIX IE Doctors
> 
> Brian,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:16:58 +0100

Hi, Paul,

Thanks for the comment. I agree in principle; however I'd like to suggest something that doesn't have the risk of mixing information element status (defined in 5102/5102bis) which provides information to IPFIX implementors, and this, which provides information to people extending IPFIX (who are often themselves implementors of the new application, but this is still subtly different)...

Since the current/deprecated/obsolete status may have runtime impact (i.e. logging at the collector "hey your exporter is ancient"), while "please don't define new IEs based on this one" is meant for humans, I suggest that we update each Information Element with a note in the Description field, stating "This Information Element should not be used as an example or precedent when defining new Information Elements," or similar. (If we ensure the string is easily searchable, we can make things easier for IE Doctors.)

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Brian

On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Paul Aitken wrote:

> Brian,
> 
> SInce IANA is _the_ repository, that's the place where people will be copying IPFIX IEs from.
> 
> It shouldn't be in a separate wiki, nor in an RFC, since we know that people are lazy and don't look in multiple places.
> 
> Or convince the originator of how to export the information correctly, and mark the IE as deprecated.
> 
> P.