Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:15:22 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IP Flow Information Export Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information
	Author(s)       : Benoit Claise
                          Brian Trammell
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-02.txt
	Pages           : 68
	Date            : 2012-06-28

Abstract:
   This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   protocol that serves for transmitting Traffic Flow information over
   the network.  In order to transmit Traffic Flow information from an
   Exporting Process to an information Collecting Process, a common
   representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating
   them is required.  This document describes how the IPFIX Data and
   Template Records are carried over a number of transport protocols
   from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process.  This
   document obsoletes RFC 5101.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-02

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:26:27 +0200

Greetings, all,

5101-bis rev 02 has been posted. This revision addresses points raised in discussions on the mailing list after Paris: clarification of the applicability of reduced-size encoding, clarification of the definition of Flows in parallel with -a9n, changes to simplified template management to be more in line with the existing protocol. There are minor 

Other points raised after Paris included whether to modify MTI for TLS/DTLS. On review, the MTI is actually specified per transport (if SCTP then DTLS, if UDP then DTLS, if TCP then TLS), so the requirement to implement DTLS over SCTP is only implied by the requirement to implement SCTP. Given this, and the fact that DTLS over SCTP has apparently become implementable without having to resort to various library shenanigans, it would appear that this is neither necessary to do, nor possible without breaking interop with 5101. We will have to show DTLS over SCTP, DTLS over UDP, and TLS over TCP interop to advance the document, though.

Please review and comment to the list.

Best regards,

Brian

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-02.txt
> Date: June 28, 2012 2:15:22 PM GMT+02:00
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix