DRAFT Minutes of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) WG IETF 54, Yokohama, Monday July 15, 2002 83 people in attendance Reported by Dave Plonka & Nevil Brownlee (co-chairs) The meeting agenda is available here: http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/IETF54/IETF54_IPFIX_agenda.sdd http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/IETF54/IETF54_IPFIX_agenda.ppt as well as the slideshows here: http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/IETF54/ 1) Nevil gave an overview of the WG charter and current status. In summary, we're proceeding with the protocol evaluations. When these are complete we will revise the architecture and data model documents to embody the chosen protocol. 2) We reviewed the current WG drafts: a) Requirements (see accompanying slides) Juergen Quittek Regarding multicast traffic, the current draft says only that a compliant protocol MAY report the set of egress interfaces and/or the "replication factor". It was suggested that this be changed to either SHOULD. It was observed that it would be "hard" to report multicast egress interfaces given some current router implementations. However, consensus by a hum was that a protocol SHOULD support these metrics. The next revision will be published ASAP and put to WG last call on the mailing list. b) Architecture (see accompanying slides) Nevil Brownlee c) Data Model - no changes Nevil Brownlee d) Applicability (see accompanying slides) Tanja Zseby Others were encouraged to submit text for additional sections of this document. 3) Nevil reported the status of the protocol evaluation. This information was posted to the mailing list on 7-JUL-2002: http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/1000.html Nevil explained that the advocacy drafts will be submitted to the evaluation team and will subsequently be submitted as Internet Drafts. (These drafts are short-lived, working group documents only - not to become RFCs.) Discussion regarding the candidate protocols is encouraged by all and should take place on the public mailing list using the "ipfix-eval@net.doit.wisc.edu" address. This will be the official method to communicate with the evaluation team and/or protocol advocates. Regarding the proposed deadline for advocates to submit initial advocacy drafts, it was suggested to change the date to 2-SEP-2002, to which there were no objections by those in attendance. Three attendees indicated that they intended to advocate specific protocols, namely: CRANE, DIAMETER, and NetFlow v9. Other protocols may be forthcoming, perhaps by advocates not in attendance. Lastly, the chairs will review the WG milestones and discuss them with with the Area Directors. -- $Id: minutes.txt,v 1.1 2002/07/15 12:36:34 dplonka Exp $