Subject: [IPFIX] information model vs. information elements

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:09:49 +0200

Hi,

since this came up recently again in another context, the usage of the
term "information model" in IPFIX is I think rather unfortunate. Since
5102 is being revised, would it make sense to change its title and the
terminology in the document?

OLD

            Information Model for IP Flow Information Export

NEW

	    Information Elements for IP Flow Information Export

There are a few sentences to change as well and perhaps a paragraph to
remove. But I believe the proposed new title is less confusing, it
actually tells upfront what is in the specification.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:20:00 +0200

Hi, Juergen, all,

This is probably doable, though not quite so simply, I think... 5102(-bis) has been known as "the information model" in an IPFIX context for long enough that if all references to it 
disappeared, there might be confusion.

It might make sense to change the title, though; however, since the document is no longer the
canonical reference for information elements for IPFIX, the proposed title isn't really right either. How about "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element Overview"?

We do also have this paragraph in section 1, which on rereading could also do with some improvement:

OLD:

   The use of the term 'information model' is not fully in line with the
   definition of this term in [RFC3444].  The IPFIX information model
   does not specify relationships between Information Elements, but also
   it does not specify a concrete encoding of Information Elements.
   Besides the encoding used by the IPFIX protocol, other encodings of
   IPFIX Information Elements can be applied, for example, XML-based
   encodings.

NEW (for next revision):

   This document is, for historical reasons, often referred to as
   "the IPFIX Information Model". However, use of the term 'information 
   model' is not fully in line with the
   definition of this term in [RFC3444].  This document specifies neither
   relationships between Information Elements nor a concrete encoding of
   them. Relationships among Information Elements IPFIX are dynamic, 
   determined by Templates used at runtime by the protocol. The IPFIX 
   protocol [RFC5101bis] specifies binary encodings suitable for use 
   with the protocol for each of the data types defined in Section 3.1.
   In addition, other encodings of
   IPFIX Information Elements could be applied, for example, XML-based
   encodings, to apply the Information Elements to other protocols.

Comments?

Thanks, best regards,

Brian

On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:40:32 +0200

> canonical reference for information elements for IPFIX, the proposed title isn't really right either. How about "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element Overview"?

Is it an overview? I do not think so. What about "Common IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements"? That's what I ended
up calling the YANG data types document.

/js