Kathleen, All,
Apologies for jumping in here, but I wasn't privvy to the earlier
discussion to which you allude.
Summary: This draft extends RFC3954, but is specific to Cisco.
No, this draft does not extend RFC 3954.
RFC 3954 specifies the NFv9 Protocol and the associated Information
Model. The model is extensible, and I own the netflow-police hat for
reviewing, approving, and actioning NFv9 extensions.
The IPFIX Protocol (RFC 7011) has its own Information Model (RFC 7012,
IANA) which is also extensible upon application to IANA, subject to
expert review by IE-doctors (RFC 7013).
The yourtchenko-cisco-ies draft extends the IPFIX Information model. Per
section 6 of the draft, "IANA Considerations":
This document specifies several new IPFIX Information Elements in the
IPFIX Information Element registry
The IPFIX Information Model was initially based upon the NFv9
Information Model. Indeed, the two are generally considered to be
synonymous.
The extensions which are being added to the IPFIX model seek to retain
that synonymity by describing NFv9 elements which were not known or
defined at the time RFC 3954 was written. These can be adopted into the
IPFIX Information Model to retain compatibility, rather than defining
equivalent IPFIX elements with different IDs from NFv9 and thus
complicating life for every netflow collector.
Note that this is not a change to either the NFv9 or IPFIX protocols.
P.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
