Subject: RE: [ipfix] export packet length - LAST CALL

From: "MEYER,JEFFREY D (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:59:33 -0700

Nevil,

  Thanks for summarizing the current status and seeking quick and rough
consensus.

  Regarding the consensus aspect, do you have any ground rules, i.e. lack of
disagreement on  mailing list w/in n days, or number of pro/con e-mails from
unique authors w/in n days, or some anything else?  Perhaps there are
already documented or undocumented precedents from other WG's we'd wish to
follow?

  I must admit that I feel I'm missing something here.  The hummmm process
at the face to face meetings I understand and can accept, the pre-meeting
methodology puzzles me.

Regards,

  Jeff Meyer

-----Original Message-----
From: Nevil Brownlee [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ipfix] export packet length - LAST CALL

Hi all:

Following up on the latest round of discusisons:

1) Using Randy & Rob's WG issues tracking system sounds fine.

2) Running Last Calls after mailing list discussion is a good way to
   reach consensus (and thereby close) issues.

3) On 'extensibility' of theIPFIX protocol.  My take on this is that
   - We want an information model which can be extended by adding new
     attributes, and a protocol which can handle such new attributes,
     so we need to put some design effort in now to achieve that.
   - For reliability we agreed that the initial version of IPFIX has
     to work with only one-way transport, but that we need sufficient
     hooks to add reliability later on.
   Both these goals are clearly being worked on, that's great.  But
   we need to be careful to balance our development efforts so as
   to produce a good, simple protocol now, which can be extended as
   needed later - without unduly delaying our efforts to get the 
   initial version done fairly quickly.  "By the end of this year" to
   reach near-final drafts sounds about right to me ...

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941     ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message
body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:16:19 +1200

> already documented or undocumented precedents from other WG's we'd wish to

I'm a bit loth to set out rules, but how about this to start with:
  * Issue is raised on list, either directly or as comment on a posted
    document
  * At least one (or two?) other people post an opinion for or against
    the issue within say 5 days - now it's recognised as an issue
  * The document editor starts a last call for the issue: 
    it's resolved if there are some 'for' responses, and no 'against'
    responses within 7 days.  (Note that complete documents are subject
    to 2-week last calls).
The point about rules is that our goal is to produce documents that are
technically sound, and don't want that soundness compromised by voting
rules being interpretted too literally.

> at the face to face meetings I understand and can accept, the pre-meeting

Up until now we've worked by spelling out what was to happen, e.g. documents
produced by .., discussion on list by .., discussion at IETF meetings,
confirmed by discussion on IPFIX list.  The hardest thing about getting a
WG to actually work is to get enough participation and discussion to achieve
real progress.  Now that we have end goals visible, I trust that everyone will
put the effort in to get the inital version of IPFIX completed real soon now.

Cheers, Nevil

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 07:26:53 -0400

> already documented or undocumented precedents from other WG's we'd wish to

	Nothing so formal yet. I'll issue last call with the status
	as I see it from the mailing list. Then wait at least a week
	or 2 for mailing list responses. We'll need an exception process
	but what that is I'm not sure yet. 

	If you find a documented process for this, kindly let me know.

	Paul