hi Paul,
thanks for the comments/review. Commentcomments inline:
On 17 Jul 2014, at 16:05, Paul Aitken <paitken(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Benoit, Brian, All,
4. Data Type Encodings
Each subsection of this section defines a textual encoding for the
abstract data types defined in [RFC7012].
Is 7012 the correct reference? Isn't IANA's IPFIX registry now understood to
be the master reference?
(ie,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-information-element-data-types)
For IEs, yes. This is a reference to the abstract data types defined in section
3.1 of RFC 7012, not the Information Element definitions.
With a view to extensibility, this document doesn't say what to do if/when
new data types are added to IANA (eg, see ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export).
eg even one line to say that they can be represented in a default or limited
way, or that they cannot be represented at all - in which case, how should
the representation be extended in future, if needs be?
I presume that this would have to be done by a future draft that updates this
RFC, referencing a draft that updates Section 3.1 of RFC 7012, but we can say
so explicitly.
Note that every ADT that's been added or considered since RFC 5102 has been
more or less a hack that only makes sense within the binary encoding, and as
such doesn't need a text representation. The RFC 6313 ADTs are only interesting
in the context of the RFC 7101 encoding of the ADTs, and are explicitly noted
as such in section 4.11.
mib-variable-export is a more interesting case, but I don't think it really
applies here. The point of this work is to allow interoperability for textual
representations of values for Information Elements taken from the IPFIX
Information Element registry. The point of mib-variable-export is to allow
IPFIX (or rather, the binary encoding of records defined in RFC 7011, to which
the representation is quite tightly bound) to export Information Elements in a
_different_ type space. And most probably, the right way to do that would be to
directly define textual representations for MIB data directly (which I presume
already exist; I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an SNMP geek.)
Appendix A / Figure 1:
While Figure 1 in this draft initially seems identical to Figure 1 in
section10.2 of 7013, there are some important differences between them:
7013:
sourceIPv4Address(8)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
destinationIPv4Address(12)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
Figure 1:
sourceIPv6Address(27)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
destinationIPv6Address(28)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
...
tcpControlBits(6)<unsigned8>[1]
flowEndReason(136)<unsigned8>[1]
This has been wrong since -00 :
sourceIPv6Address(27)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
destinationIPv6Address(28)<ipv4Address>[4]{key}
(Figure 2 shows a length of 16 for these, so presumably s/v4/v6/ and
s/[4]/[16]/ in the above definitions.)
Yep, thanks for the catch.
And tcpControlBits:
tcpControlBits(6)<unsigned8>[1]
- has been revised to unsigned16 [RFC7125]. Changing this would also make
Figure 2 align more neatly.
It'll probably still be exported as 1 byte everywhere, but the type is indeed
unsigned16
Figure 3: it's not clear how the strings for the timestamp, IPv6 address, and
protocol identifier fields get mapped to the corresponding
dateTimeMilliseconds, ipv6address, and unsigned8 types shown in Figures 1 and
2. eg, conversion is required between "tcp" and 6, so the draft should
mention that.
It does: section 4.2, paragraph 2:
In the special case that the unsigned Information Element has
identifier semantics, and refers to a set of codepoints, either in an
external registry, a sub-registry, or directly in the description of
the Information Element, then the name or short description for that
codepoint as a string MAY be used to improve readability.
Thanks, cheers,
Brian
On 16/07/2014 23:33, Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear IPFIX WG,
In the text below, I explain the reason behind the second IETF LC:
During the IESG telechat, the IESG concluded that this document should be
Proposed Standard, and not Informational as initially proposed in v6.
This IETF LC should focus on the Proposed Standard changes in the
latest version.
Regards, Benoit
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IPFIX] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt-07.txt> (Textual
Representation of IPFIX Abstract Data Types) to Proposed Standard
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:24:27 -0700
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply-To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
CC: <ipfix(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
The IESG has received a request from the IP Flow Information Export WG
(ipfix) to consider the following document:
- 'Textual Representation of IPFIX Abstract Data Types'
<draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt-07.txt>
During the IESG telechat, the IESG concluded that this document should be
Proposed Standard, and not Informational as initially proposed in v6.
This IETF LC should focus on the Proposed Standard changes in the
latest version.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing lists by 2014-07-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document defines UTF-8 representations for IPFIX abstract data
types, to support interoperable usage of the IPFIX Information
Elements with protocols based on textual encodings.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail