From nobody Sun Jan 15 13:18:19 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D795E1296B9 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:18:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.625] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=calix.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iUrM9kGLUVv for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02lp0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46DD11296DA for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:18:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=CALIX.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-calix-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=1NrJaEwWSW3XX1BZUrnvtXsLrO3T3B+3ihvW5Ai6yxs=; b=hWGYFxMHFFB17a0BoLY1uaaH+I2vgzUcdynBBREqOAGy+9E0ZG/Q0yVjcDCmph+mdYMlzqq7TlwDfr5FCOyraEY4Y5prnfN8HLKOiEG2DGJtTQE+vWJXt/BQ4I89lMkIZ5ICyrW6fmBJuPUei8DbSlNsJ15b0O7ucLSWYKMBcq8= Received: from BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.154.20) by BY2PR0501MB1736.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.154.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.860.6; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:18:14 +0000 Received: from BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.154.20]) by BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.154.20]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.008; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:18:14 +0000 From: Marta Seda To: "ipfix@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: BBF WT-352 Thread-Index: AdJvcbik1b38vcHbTAeHPqHB9kiyGg== Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:18:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Marta.Seda@calix.com; x-originating-ip: [23.118.53.86] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: af67df68-2c73-4825-72b7-08d43d8c0446 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1736; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0501MB1736; 7:1SNJe7EI/de2p9OpXnr7VKk3HYzF+Bh+t2x7Wm2kbujb2HZMn8b3BaPiMTH82Q0AbEAuSomoe8sDD3mJArr3crR8Qa7Cjl/eVlY9HPpy8sAKLsABDj5rO1aBBFTCd9Tm57pN/j74LY1v0LTD/E/clo65IVx192P1c2/K+mBILn2N3Y7EBeJOm85Fun6rptrkPSlEjhu8XzbTKk+g3mzYP1yOtenq3JsiuNZO2n9suE4PcmdPMrp4cBcGY+1KUtpfXA0919OuBR9do8KC/aRwsGpyzhmbi4i2WMPwFHWUK7SvbKnI/E6qxMQ6+idwCiVHsaRx7HLEk510qlrjyLdsp4SEb3VAsRnP3+NCNNutT85H1kDj80xfwTGUFZbK/52Cbq3n3tSvsz/V6zUQy2WXpKcwPDN89w940k0hu3EtKvu/qrmI6GflYuM6MKWBH7+DV2ZvNH7QOAkVoy9wbUrtjw== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(131327999870524)(21748063052155)(1591387915157); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1736; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1736; x-forefront-prvs: 0188D66E61 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(39450400003)(51884002)(199003)(189002)(101416001)(8676002)(86362001)(3280700002)(2900100001)(33656002)(92566002)(5630700001)(27001)(9686003)(122556002)(5660300001)(50986999)(54356999)(19273905006)(450100001)(3846002)(236005)(2351001)(606005)(3660700001)(5640700003)(25786008)(6436002)(8936002)(6506006)(107886002)(189998001)(68736007)(55016002)(99286003)(9326002)(790700001)(97736004)(6116002)(54896002)(6306002)(2501003)(66066001)(7906003)(105586002)(7736002)(102836003)(7696004)(110136003)(81166006)(81156014)(1730700003)(74316002)(106356001)(2906002)(6916009)(38730400001)(77096006)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1736; H:BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: calix.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR0501MB173436984FCA8FD98EA3DE009C7A0BY2PR0501MB1734_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: calix.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jan 2017 21:18:14.1443 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ffae2e5-6ff0-4510-bbf3-ca842d7ca55e X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0501MB1736 Archived-At: Subject: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352 X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:18:18 -0000 --_000_BY2PR0501MB173436984FCA8FD98EA3DE009C7A0BY2PR0501MB1734_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Channel Termination Protoco= l (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical Networks) protocol. W= e have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPFIX as a unicast stream proto= col for transporting the following data elements across NGPON2 Channel Term= inations (CTs): * dhcp leases * pppoe session information * Igmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc) * ARP data * OMCI ME instance (optional) Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not IPFIX). We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (rather than re-inventi= ng new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by IANA (e.g., NGPON2 s= pecific TLVs). WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined for the purpose of in= teroperability among NGPON2 vendors. RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in expanding IANA registry= (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doctors. RFC 7013 prov= ides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA registries. What I wo= uld like to understand is the following: A) Where can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE? I have been= using: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml (is this the most= up to date registry) B) Would it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX = doctors (to verify there is no overlap in definitions). Who could I contac= t with respect to this? Regards, Marta Seda --_000_BY2PR0501MB173436984FCA8FD98EA3DE009C7A0BY2PR0501MB1734_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

 

I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Chan= nel Termination Protocol (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical= Networks) protocol.  We have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPF= IX as a unicast stream protocol for transporting the following data elements across NGPON2 Channel Terminations (CTs):=

·       d= hcp leases

·       p= ppoe session information

·       I= gmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc)

·       A= RP data

·       O= MCI ME instance (optional)

 

Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not = IPFIX).

 

We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (ra= ther than re-inventing new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by = IANA (e.g., NGPON2 specific TLVs).  WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined for the purpose of interoperability among N= GPON2 vendors.

 

RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in exp= anding IANA registry (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doc= tors.  RFC 7013 provides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA registries.  What I would like to = understand is the following:

A)    W= here can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE?  I have been u= sing: http://www.ia= na.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml (is this the most up to date regis= try)

B)     W= ould it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX doctors = (to verify there is no overlap in definitions).  Who could I contact w= ith respect to this?

 

Regards,

Marta Seda

 

 

 

 

--_000_BY2PR0501MB173436984FCA8FD98EA3DE009C7A0BY2PR0501MB1734_-- From nobody Mon Jan 16 13:39:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF87D12969F; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:39:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xei3Yiz294JV; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFE8E129690; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000700.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v0GLTv20022896; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:39:06 -0800 Received: from brmwp-exmb12.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2814scg5xr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:39:06 -0800 Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:39:03 -0700 Received: from [10.252.49.5] (10.252.49.5) by EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:38:58 +0100 To: Marta Seda References: From: PJ Aitken Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:38:52 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0ED5743D68068DDEE68AC988" X-Originating-IP: [10.252.49.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: hq1wp-excas13.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.103) To EMEAWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.85) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-01-16_17:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1701160294 Archived-At: Cc: ie-doctors@ietf.org, "ipfix@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352 X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:39:11 -0000 --------------0ED5743D68068DDEE68AC988 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Marta, it's good to hear that you're thinking of using some IPFIX Information Elements. The latest IPFIX elements are in IANA's registry. You can contact ie-doctors@ietf.org to discuss and review new proposals. The formal request for new elements is usually made either in an RFC or through a request to IANA. P. On 15/01/17 21:18, Marta Seda wrote: > > Hello, > > I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Channel Termination > Protocol (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical Networks) > protocol. We have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPFIX as a > unicast stream protocol for transporting the following data elements > across NGPON2 Channel Terminations (CTs): > > ·dhcp leases > > ·pppoe session information > > ·Igmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc) > > ·ARP data > > ·OMCI ME instance (optional) > > Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not IPFIX). > > We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (rather than > re-inventing new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by IANA > (e.g., NGPON2 specific TLVs). WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined > for the purpose of interoperability among NGPON2 vendors. > > RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in expanding IANA > registry (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doctors. > RFC 7013 provides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA > registries. What I would like to understand is the following: > > A)Where can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE? I have > been using: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml > > (is this the most up to date registry) > > B)Would it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX > doctors (to verify there is no overlap in definitions). Who could I > contact with respect to this? > > Regards, > > Marta Seda > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix&d=DwICAg&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=bDtxxCIPW_T3jeiYOQCvkKo800_8HuyXUPQHGVom_6E&s=vf4XRV9bB7AyXYDckfsLCtJ5IpdRwD9wtGKGbdqcWjk&e= --------------0ED5743D68068DDEE68AC988 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Marta, it's good to hear that you're thinking of using some IPFIX Information Elements.

The latest IPFIX elements are in IANA's registry.

You can contact ie-doctors@ietf.org to discuss and review new proposals. The formal request for new elements is usually made either in an RFC or through a request to IANA.

P.


On 15/01/17 21:18, Marta Seda wrote:

Hello,

 

I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Channel Termination Protocol (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical Networks) protocol.  We have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPFIX as a unicast stream protocol for transporting the following data elements across NGPON2 Channel Terminations (CTs):

·       dhcp leases

·       pppoe session information

·       Igmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc)

·       ARP data

·       OMCI ME instance (optional)

 

Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not IPFIX).

 

We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (rather than re-inventing new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by IANA (e.g., NGPON2 specific TLVs).  WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined for the purpose of interoperability among NGPON2 vendors.

 

RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in expanding IANA registry (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doctors.  RFC 7013 provides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA registries.  What I would like to understand is the following:

A)    Where can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE?  I have been using: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml (is this the most up to date registry)

B)     Would it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX doctors (to verify there is no overlap in definitions).  Who could I contact with respect to this?

 

Regards,

Marta Seda

 

 

 

 



_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix&d=DwICAg&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=Xx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=bDtxxCIPW_T3jeiYOQCvkKo800_8HuyXUPQHGVom_6E&s=vf4XRV9bB7AyXYDckfsLCtJ5IpdRwD9wtGKGbdqcWjk&e=

--------------0ED5743D68068DDEE68AC988-- From nobody Mon Jan 16 14:15:13 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D731296E7 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bkpHSUALKQ3e for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC72F1296E4 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9D5C4B81A09; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:11 -0800 (PST) To: muenz@net.in.tum.de, bclaise@cisco.com, paitken@cisco.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20170116221511.9D5C4B81A09@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:11 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: vican.pavol@gmail.com, ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6728 (4909) X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:15:13 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6728, "Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6728&eid=4909 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Pavol Vican Section: 6 Original Text ------------- pattern "\S+" ... pattern "\S(.*\S)?" Corrected Text -------------- pattern '\S+' ... pattern '\S(.*\S)?' or pattern "\S+" ... pattern "\S(.*\S)?" Notes ----- RFC 7950 in section 6.3.1 says that backslash has special meaning if it is in the double-quoted string. The only characters immediately following the backslash are n, t, \, ". Other characters are forbidden. This can be solved using single-quoted string or double backslash. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6728 (draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols Publication Date : October 2012 Author(s) : G. Muenz, B. Claise, P. Aitken Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Flow Information Export Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Tue Jan 17 23:46:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19E3129585; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:46:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GgvQ0HtlHekr; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:46:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ED5C129622; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:46:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 672F7B8005A; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:46:27 -0800 (PST) To: vican.pavol@gmail.com, muenz@net.in.tum.de, bclaise@cisco.com, paitken@cisco.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20170118074627.672F7B8005A@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:46:27 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [IPFIX] [Errata Verified] RFC6728 (4909) X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:46:30 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC6728, "Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6728&eid=4909 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Pavol Vican Date Reported: 2017-01-16 Verified by: Benoit Claise (IESG) Section: 6 Original Text ------------- pattern "\S+"; ... pattern "\S(.*\S)?"; Corrected Text -------------- pattern '\S+'; ... pattern '\S(.*\S)?'; Notes ----- RFC 7950 in section 6.1.3 says that backslash has special meaning if it is in the double-quoted string. The only characters immediately following the backslash are n, t, \, ". Other characters are forbidden. This can be solved using single-quoted string or double backslash. -------------------------------------- RFC6728 (draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Configuration Data Model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols Publication Date : October 2012 Author(s) : G. Muenz, B. Claise, P. Aitken Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IP Flow Information Export Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Wed Jan 25 12:16:27 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0083B129B91; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:15:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=calix.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BCDm6_XqxWZT; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp0020.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 487D8129B8C; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=CALIX.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-calix-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=qjccGiPR1xbz2KbCghINqN46iM7EDK2Ws22uK8VTsOc=; b=dwl4v3JY9vRT8De6GuPI1UUA1HBgrNSSzlTJv45qqa63ZyEX9lr4eWxKLt9nPb628wXweBTcg5zk9tC3xSKcReaC6STnFTSzxEOZLo8bwF/vPcOmUFcB0mJcxDyiD6YNaV0QYWg73qLpkyQYeY4nvcDhxtRW368PGJJK8y4klQ8= Received: from BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.154.20) by BY2PR0501MB1733.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.154.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.874.6; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:15:50 +0000 Received: from BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.154.20]) by BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.154.20]) with mapi id 15.01.0874.012; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:15:50 +0000 From: Marta Seda To: PJ Aitken Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352 Thread-Index: AdJvcbik1b38vcHbTAeHPqHB9kiyGgAzzVUAAcFRmjA= Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Marta.Seda@calix.com; x-originating-ip: [72.165.117.174] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 638bcc5a-5ddf-423c-edc1-08d4455ef505 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1733; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0501MB1733; 7:cT7a2W1WYSfWO48DFul8OGlKkKlSknfNsO4+t/JFBo3r/tlAn6lMaH6QkLuG2fCWJaqhY73J03Ahis4h+2MNNcUN/j6o3iYzBxbnspICAo/e2EE0c3Rikfnc0pCHkGdIZjJKnAKx0tuu+hgIKPkS5AYYI1X/fMXKf+ho9HS1hT3X86ax3T9a1pNI1pMKzsAX6P4guTGMghuZLYjS8nkZf+w/STEQkR/rEZpYW/GdZgOKA0rFApQks4Xhic50Hmbd4dsFB+QulKZqZ7n1Ozi/lZOYe0Ft+rBf1NTFBZmrE2P+CLBOH4FR5qD/dgdH+DWfkIK7+xPJJIuwKTK+U+ove5c3OsO/ijWK+nFEzn87eN22B4onJhDx1DrOd5Ew9ugnzN5O/oFDEQsxJhKxi5ND5NJHvH2cH/O33w5GKsIfN1eyn9F++H3SfGZdXUhKWTQtiXpocQX0pqad2BVb24VEhQ== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(131327999870524)(21748063052155)(162037286835866)(1591387915157)(10436049006162); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1733; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1733; x-forefront-prvs: 01986AE76B x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(39450400003)(377454003)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(51884002)(236005)(97736004)(5660300001)(3280700002)(68736007)(2906002)(86362001)(53936002)(4326007)(122556002)(2900100001)(66066001)(33656002)(3660700001)(9686003)(6306002)(54896002)(54906002)(101416001)(38730400001)(229853002)(105586002)(106356001)(99286003)(8936002)(8676002)(54356999)(6506006)(25786008)(76176999)(77096006)(6916009)(7696004)(81156014)(50986999)(189998001)(7736002)(3846002)(6116002)(790700001)(92566002)(102836003)(6436002)(110136003)(7906003)(74316002)(81166006)(2950100002)(55016002)(19273905006)(606005)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0501MB1733; H:BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: calix.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR0501MB1734F8A6008509D2EE63D7D39C740BY2PR0501MB1734_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: calix.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Jan 2017 20:15:50.3298 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ffae2e5-6ff0-4510-bbf3-ca842d7ca55e X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0501MB1733 Archived-At: Cc: "ie-doctors@ietf.org" , "Khotimsky, Denis A \(denis.khotimsky@verizon.com\)" , "ipfix@ietf.org" , William Lupton Subject: Re: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352 X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:15:54 -0000 --_000_BY2PR0501MB1734F8A6008509D2EE63D7D39C740BY2PR0501MB1734_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you - P. I am including others at BBF in clarifications we need in W= T-352. I would like clarification on the following IANA Informational Elements: 1) minFlowStartSeconds: The earliest absolute timestamp of the first p= acket within any Flow within the scope containing this Information Element,= rounded down to the second if necessary. This Information Element SHOULD b= e bound to its containing IPFIX Transport Session via an options record and= the sessionScope Information Element. Q: Is this informational element specific to netflow? Could it be re-purp= osed for other purposes (e.g., the length of time a PPPoE session started)?= (if not supported in IANA, BBF can create one for WT-352 purposes) 2) dot1qVlanId: The value of the 12-bit VLAN Identifier portion of the= Tag Control Information field of an Ethernet frame. The structure and sem= antics within the Tag Control Information field are defined in [IEEE802.1Q Q: I guess this question is more about confirming this definition. In WT-= 352, we need to be able to identify the S-tag and C-tag. This definitions = seems to point to the S-tag. Is this the correct interpretation of the IAN= A IPFIX IE? 3) dot1qCustomerVlanId: The value represents the Customer VLAN identifi= er in the Customer field as described in IEEE802.1Q]. Q: This definitions seems to point to the C-tag. Is this the correct inte= rpretation of the IANA IPFIX IE? Appreciate your feedback. Regards, Marta From: PJ Aitken [mailto:pjaitken@brocade.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 1:39 PM To: Marta Seda Cc: ipfix@ietf.org; ie-doctors@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352 Marta, it's good to hear that you're thinking of using some IPFIX Informati= on Elements. The latest IPFIX elements are in IANA's registry. You can contact ie-doctors@ietf.org to discuss = and review new proposals. The formal request for new elements is usually ma= de either in an RFC or through a request to IANA. P. On 15/01/17 21:18, Marta Seda wrote: Hello, I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Channel Termination Protoco= l (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical Networks) protocol. W= e have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPFIX as a unicast stream proto= col for transporting the following data elements across NGPON2 Channel Term= inations (CTs): * dhcp leases * pppoe session information * Igmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc) * ARP data * OMCI ME instance (optional) Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not IPFIX). We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (rather than re-inventi= ng new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by IANA (e.g., NGPON2 s= pecific TLVs). WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined for the purpose of in= teroperability among NGPON2 vendors. RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in expanding IANA registry= (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doctors. RFC 7013 prov= ides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA registries. What I wo= uld like to understand is the following: A) Where can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE? I have been= using: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml (is this the most up to date reg= istry) B) Would it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX = doctors (to verify there is no overlap in definitions). Who could I contac= t with respect to this? Regards, Marta Seda _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list IPFIX@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman= _listinfo_ipfix&d=3DDwICAg&c=3DIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=3DXx9729xYDYoCgBDdc= p1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=3DbDtxxCIPW_T3jeiYOQCvkKo800_8HuyXUPQHGVom_6E&= s=3Dvf4XRV9bB7AyXYDckfsLCtJ5IpdRwD9wtGKGbdqcWjk&e=3D --_000_BY2PR0501MB1734F8A6008509D2EE63D7D39C740BY2PR0501MB1734_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you – P= .  I am including others at BBF in clarifications we need in WT-352.

 

I would like clarif= ication on the following IANA Informational Elements:

1)  &n= bsp;  minFlowStartSeconds:  The earliest absolute timestamp of the first packet within any Fl= ow within the scope containing this Information Element, rounded down to th= e second if necessary. This Information Element SHOULD be bound to its containing IPFIX Transport Session via an options r= ecord and the sessionScope Information Element.

 

Q:  Is this infor= mational element specific to netflow?  Could it be re-purposed for oth= er purposes (e.g., the length of time a PPPoE session started)?  (if not supported in IANA,  BBF can create one for WT-352 purposes)

 

2)   &nbs= p; dot1qVlanId:  The value of the 12-bit V= LAN Identifier portion of the Tag Control Information field of an Ethernet = frame.  The structure and semantics within the Tag Control Information= field are defined in [IEEE802.1Q

Q:  I guess this question is more about confirming this definition.&n= bsp; In WT-352, we need to be able to identify the S-tag and C-tag.  T= his definitions seems to point to the S-tag.  Is this the correct interpretation of the IANA IPFIX IE?

3)   &nbs= p; dot1qCustomerVlanId: The value represents th= e Customer VLAN identifier in the Customer field as described

in IEEE802.1Q].=

Q:  This definitions seems to point to the C-tag.  Is this th= e correct interpretation of the IANA IPFIX IE?

 

Appreciate your fee= dback.  Regards,

 

Marta

From:= PJ Aitken [mailto:pjaitken@brocade.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 1:39 PM
To: Marta Seda <Marta.Seda@calix.com>
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org; ie-doctors@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] BBF WT-352

 

Marta, it's good to h= ear that you're thinking of using some IPFIX Information Elements.

The latest IPFIX elements are in IANA's registry.

You can contact ie-doctors@ietf.org<= /a> to discuss and review new proposals. The formal request for new element= s is usually made either in an RFC or through a request to IANA.

P.

On 15/01/17 21:18, Marta Seda wrote:

Hello,

 

I am the editor of Broadband Forum WT-352 Inter-Chan= nel Termination Protocol (ICTP) for NGPON2 (Next Generation Passive Optical= Networks) protocol.  We have been discussing in WT-352 the use of IPF= IX as a unicast stream protocol for transporting the following data elements across NGPON2 Channel Terminations (CTs):=

·       d= hcp leases

·       p= ppoe session information

·       I= gmp data (e.g., channel, uptime, etc)

·       A= RP data

·       O= MCI ME instance (optional)

 

Any bidirectional TLVs are transported using ICTP (not = IPFIX).

 

We are proposing to reuse some IANA TLVs for WT-352 (ra= ther than re-inventing new ones) and BBF introduce new TLVs not covered by = IANA (e.g., NGPON2 specific TLVs).  WT-352 needs these TLVs to be defined for the purpose of interoperability among N= GPON2 vendors.

 

RFC 7013 provides guidance to authors interested in exp= anding IANA registry (for Flow applications) and the existence of IPFIX doc= tors.  RFC 7013 provides guidance for those interested in expanding IANA registries.  What I would like to = understand is the following:

A)    W= here can BBF pull the latest (or in progress) IPFIX IE?  I have been u= sing: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml (is this the most up = to date registry)

B)     W= ould it be possible to have WT-352 proposed TLVs reviewed by IPFIX doctors = (to verify there is no overlap in definitions).  Who could I contact w= ith respect to this?

 

Regards,

Marta Seda

 

 

 

 




_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
IPFIX@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__w=
ww.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix&d=3DDwICAg&c=3DIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi=
2jTzg&r=3DXx9729xYDYoCgBDdcp1FKt5PyYd1TCoXNKhyPY8CFp8&m=3DbDtxxCIPW=
_T3jeiYOQCvkKo800_8HuyXUPQHGVom_6E&s=3Dvf4XRV9bB7AyXYDckfsLCtJ5IpdRwD9w=
tGKGbdqcWjk&e=3D

 

--_000_BY2PR0501MB1734F8A6008509D2EE63D7D39C740BY2PR0501MB1734_--