Subject: [ipfix] IPFIX requirements - final list of issues

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:50:04 +0200

Dear all,

Attached you will find the list of proposed changes from version -09 to
version -10 of the IPFIX requirements. Benoit and I compiled it and
added some new wordings where required. Most things are already agreed
on the list, but please have a look at issues #5, #11, #12 and #13.

If there are no objections by Thursday,
I will post a new version on Friday.

Cheers,

    Juergen

---

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:42:15 +1200

> I will post a new version on Friday.

I've read through all the changes, they seem OK to me.
One slight suggestion for change 12. Confidentiality (and 13. Anonymisation,
I guess):  The last sentence seems confusing, how about

  However, the implementations significance atributes need to match those 
  of the corresponding IPFIX requirements.

As it is, I found that sentence confusing in the version you distributed.

Once you've published this revision, could you please send a note to
Randy and Bert telling them what changes have been made, and asking them to
send it back to IESG?  Thanks.

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/

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:35:40 +0200

Nevil,

>   of the corresponding IPFIX requirements.

Thanks. This sounds much better than the original sentence.

> send it back to IESG?  Thanks.

OK. I will do so.

Cheers,

    Juergen

---

From: "Tal Givoly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:49:59 -0700

Juergen,

Typos in 11: amonst -> amongst; reqirements -> requirements.

I am not in favor of the notion to excluding usage-based accounting as an
application of this protocol (in the manner suggested in #11), but if that's
the decree, the industry would eventually have to come up with an
alternative method for this accounting data to be reported. It would be a
shame that it wouldn't be possible to leverage this protocol for all of
these applications. Obviously, some applications (including cases of
usage-based accounting) would suffice with this level of reliability.

Tal

-----Original Message-----
From: majordomo listserver [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Juergen Quittek
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipfix] IPFIX requirements - final list of issues

Dear all,

Cheers,

    Juergen