1 / 8

Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz, Benoit Claise

IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream IPFIX IETF-76 Nov 11th, 2009 < draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-04 >. Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz, Benoit Claise. History. The version 01 had a normative reference to draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpstrrst-00.txt

ria-davidson
Download Presentation

Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz, Benoit Claise

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream IPFIX IETF-76 Nov 11th, 2009<draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-04 > Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz, Benoit Claise .

  2. History • The version 01 had a normative reference to draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpstrrst-00.txt • However, draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpstrrst-00.txt had a hard time to be accepted as a WG item. • IETF 73 minutes: • Dan: this draft cannot be a normative reference as long as it is not adopted by a the TSVWG. Suggestion: describe the mechanism in the normative part of the text and add an informative reference to the SCTP-RESET document. Once the document is included in the Transport WG charter it can be used as a normative reference. • Done in version 2, January 2009 • draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-00.txt was accepted as WG item in April 2009 • draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-03 went through the IESG

  3. History 2 • IESG feedback: • Why does this document says "Intended Status: Informational"? It looks fairly normative to me. • IPFIX Chair asked about the Intended Status change • Brian had one interoperability concern • “SCTP per-stream compliant CPs will not properly interoperate with 5101-compliant EPs” • Example: Template Withdrawal Message on a wrong SCTP stream would cause a problem on the CP side

  4. Change in version 04 • Put back draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-strrst-00.txt as normative reference • Changed "improvement" to "extension“, i.e. a more constraint implementation, that you might use if you see the benefit • Changed the intended status to Standard Track

  5. Change in version 04More Specific Rules • “The Data Record Reliability Options Template is used to explicitly inform the Collecting Process which Templates will be used in each SCTP stream and whether each set of associated Data Records will be sent reliably or unreliably. “ • “Before sending any Data Records on an SCTP stream, the Exporting Process MUST notify the Collecting Process of its intention to send those Data Records reliably or unreliably within that SCTP stream.”

  6. Change in version 04More Specific Rules • “If the Exporter wants to change the export reliability value (from reliable to unreliable, or vice-versa) for Data Records on a SCTP stream, the Template MUST be withdrawn, and a new Template MUST be used.” • New “Collecting Process's Side” section 4.5

  7. Next Step • Received some positive comments from Brian on the latest version • However, some editorial comments • Propose an improved dataRecordsReliability definition, to have a more general definition (not only applicable to Template ID) • Next steps: • Quickly post a new version • A new WG last call?

  8. IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream IPFIX IETF-76 Nov 11th, 2009<draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-04 > Paul Aitken, Andrew Johnson, Gerhard Muenz, Benoit Claise .

More Related