Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 05:07:18 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic Measurement
	Author(s)       : Shingo Kashima
                          Atsushi Kobayashi
                          Paul Aitken
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07.txt
	Pages           : 34
	Date            : 2013-11-04

Abstract:
   This document describes Information Elements related to the data link
   layer.  They are used by the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   protocol for encoding measured data link layer traffic information.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:28:30 +0000

Dear IPFIXers,

This is a minor update to address the issues reported by Ben Campbell in 
his Gen-ART review.

Specifically:

* changed the 3rd paragraph of the intro to clarify that:

    ... the PSAMP
    Information Model [RFC5477] and the IPFIX Information Model [RFC7011]
    don't yet contain enough Information Elements related to data link
    layer,

* corrected 3.2.18.  droppedL2OctetTotalCount to define a total counter 
rather than a delta counter:

    Description:

       The total number of octets in observed layer 2 packets (including
       the layer 2 header) that were dropped by packet treatment since
       the (re-)initialization of the Metering Process.

* I also took the opportunity to make some small formatting changes to 
Figures 1, 2, and 3 in section 6, to avoid idnits complaining that 
Figure 3 is overly wide, and to keep Figures 1 and 2 in sync.

* One issue remains from Ben's review:

    It looks like this draft updates at least RFC5477. If so, this should be indicated in the header and in the abstract.

Our view is that IANA's IPFIX registry is now the ultimate reference, so 
we don't constantly have to be referring back to old RFCs in each new 
draft.

TBD.

P.

On 04/11/2013 13:07, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:56:45 -0800

On 4/11/2013 05:28, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Dear IPFIXers,
>
> This is a minor update to address the issues reported by Ben Campbell 
> in his Gen-ART review.
>
> Specifically:
>
> * corrected 3.2.18.  droppedL2OctetTotalCount to define a total 
> counter rather than a delta counter:
>
>     Description:
>
> Our view is that IANA's IPFIX registry is now the ultimate reference, 
> so we don't constantly have to be referring back to old RFCs in each 
> new draft.

That makes sense since RFC 7012 mentions that IANA registry is now THE 
reference

    The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX] is the
    current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements.

The IE-doctors collectively agreed that updating the OLD is not needed, 
and they will consistently apply this rule for future IEs
I thought I would let the IPFIX community know.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Paul Aitken <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:51:53 +0000

> That makes sense since RFC 7012 mentions that IANA registry is now THE 

For the record, IANA's IPFIX registry MUST be the reference because 20% 
of the Information Elements in the registry are not defined in any RFC.

So if you only refer to RFCs, you will be missing 20% of the Information 
Elements.

P.