I agree with Alex that there is no need to duplicate what is already in the registry. Moreover, given that all of the HTTP IEs were simply requested, I was thinking this document might not be needed. But, when I get to the security considerations it got me thinking that there are several privacy issues at play here with things like SNI (and the existing httpUserAgent).
Therefore, Alex's point about use cases is a good one, including documenting what will be doing the exporting. I can't see how routers would be capturing most (if not all) of these IEs since the overhead would be massive. So, where do you envision these IEs being captured? Joe ________________________________ From: Alex Huang Feng <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 3:17 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: opsawg <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG]draft-gao-opsawg-ipfix-term-and-app Dear authors, As I commented during the WG meeting, many of the proposed IEs exist already in the IANA registry. But checking now, the IEs in the document already use the ones from the registry. I think it is confusing to re-state them in the document. Also, please consider add a few explicit examples of the generated IPFIX messages showing how these new IEs solve your use cases. Similar to what we did in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-23#name-ipfix-encoding-examples Regards, Alex
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
