Flow Selection Techniques
draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-18
Yes
(Benoît Claise)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -16)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-14 for -16)
Unknown
Shouldn't Section 10 discuss the security implications of revealing to an external party more detailed and finer grained information about what is happening within a network? This might be what Stephen is asking for in the second part of his Discuss.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-28 for -17)
Unknown
As discussed, it sounds like the correct text for 6.1 should be: "In order to be compliant with IPFIX, at least one of this document's flow filtering schemes MUST be implemented." I personally think it's wrong to have 2119 language for compliance statements, but since your responsible AD disagrees with me, I will just whinge here and be done with it. :-)
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-14 for -16)
Unknown
0) Full-on support Stephen's discusses. 1) s2: Missing a word (maybe "can be"): Hash-based Flow Filtering can already applied at packet level, in which case the Hash Domain MUST contain the Flow Key of the packet. 2) s7: 1st para 'bout info model should point to s8?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-24 for -17)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss points. On the 2804 reference - I think it'd be even better to say something like: "the designated expert should consult with the community if a request is received that runs counter to 2804" That's implicit in what you have now, but I think that being explicilt there would be better. However, I leave it to you/your-AD to do that or not as you prefer.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-12 for -16)
Unknown
The terms "Intermediate Flow Selection Process" and "Intermediate Selection Process" are so similar that I had to read the glossary entry for the former several times in order to catch the difference. If possible, it would be better to use a different name to refer to this process. I realize this is a central bit of terminology in this draft, so the request may seem a bit extreme, but it looks like it's been newly introduced in this particular draft, so it's not too late to do something about it. I'm not convinced that fixing it is worth the trouble, but I raise the issue because it tripped me up; it will probably trip up other new readers of the document. In section 6.2.1, I assume that the flow key is substantially smaller than the flow cache entry, but this is a bit surprising. I'm assuming the flow cache entry is somehow a heavier-weight thing, but it's not obvious what that extra weight is. I went looking for a definition of "flow cache" and didn't find one in any of the referenced RFCs. It might be helpful to have a glossary entry that briefly describes the flow cache. Presumably it's just the set of all flow records; if so, the definition of flow record in 5101 doesn't give me a basis for thinking that it's much larger than a flow key. None of this is intended to imply that the text is wrong; just that it might help to have a bit more exposition on the topic. 6.2.2.1: what's a flow position? Aside from these observations, which may or may not actually be helpful, the document looks good—thanks for doing the work!