Dear Chongfeng,
Thank you very much for reposting your comments and suggestions. I'm afraid I
didn't fully catch the question during the meeting. So thanks for clarify it in
the mailing list.
You are absolutely right on this: The purpose of this draft is " to observe the
behavior of SAV on the device, rather than to "confirm the effectiveness of
SAV." That said, if the SAV is not configured correctly on the device, the
newly defined IPFIX IEs in our draft may not be able to detect some of the
events. In fact, only those events who were triggered by SAV can be detected,
metered and exported. It was a good suggestion to carefully word the draft.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Best Regards,
Qian Cao
-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Chongfeng Xie" <[email protected]>
发送时间:2026-03-19 11:12:27 (星期四)
收件人: 【外部账号】曹倩 <[email protected]>
抄送: opsawg <[email protected]>
主题: [OPSAWG]Comments for draft-cao-opsawg-ipfix-sav
Qian and other co-authors，
Below is my comments at the OPSAWG session,
I think this draft provides a means of IPFix-based transmitting and observing
SAV events, but it does not verify the effectiveness of SAV on a device. The
effectiveness of SAV is determined by the SAV mechanism itself. If the SAV on
a device is not configured correctly, some events that should be detected may
be missed, and IPFIX would not be aware of such situations either. Based on
this consideration, I suggest revising the text to clarify that the purpose of
this document is to observe the behavior of SAV on the device, rather than to
"confirm the effectiveness of SAV." The observation of the SAV behavior is
valuable for network operation.
Not sure if my understanding is correct. Your feedback is welcome. In addition,
I don't think new use cases should be added.
Thanks.
Best regards
Chongfeng
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
