Subject: [ipfix] Re: IPFIX: Requirements draft back to IESG

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:48:08 -0700

> They don't make anonymization and confidentiality features
> mandatory-to-implement requirements of the eventual IPFIX
> protocol.  I find the language they do provide to be an
> avoidance of acknowledgement that there's a stronger than SHOULD
> or MAY _implement_ requirement for these features for IPFIX.
> ...
> The change made for my comment on usage-based accounting is
> perfect, but I took some time to think over the other two
> changes and I think they do not work.  The document still leaves
> it the case that ipfix implementations will generally have a
> strong option not to implement anonymization, and will have some
> choice not to implement confidentiality.  These are not
> mandatory-to-use, but the requirements should be indicating they
> are recommended or mandatory-to-implement.  From what I know of
> data sets in measurement research, I find it very hard to
> believe that these requirements should be set so loosely on the
> protocol overall (yes, for many apps of the protocol, they will
> be looser, and they will not be used).

allison,

as far as i can see, your point is valid and worth fixing, and
have held the doc awaiting a new rev.

randy

--
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/