Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 23:44 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA5221F86B0; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBix-febMl-A; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5D221F86AD; Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4MNUfbX020073; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:30:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4MNUbKH000323; Wed, 23 May 2012 01:30:37 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4FBC219D.8070000@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 01:30:37 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
References: <4f800f2f.634cb40a.13a1.ffff8003@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f800f2f.634cb40a.13a1.ffff8003@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080106040303000401020104"
Cc: me <bclaise@cisco.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:44:12 -0000
Hi Roni, Thanks for your review. See in-line. > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date:2012--4--7 > > IETF LC End Date: 2012--4--17 > > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an > Informational RFC. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1.In sections 2, 4.1 (PANA-L7), 5, 6.5 the draft points to information > in Cisco web page. I could not locate and information that is > referenced. The link is to the main Cisco web page. For example in > section 6.5 it lists the selectorID as 10000, where is this value located? > The exact URsL are http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6555/ps6601/presentation_c96-629396.html and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/ps6616/product_bulletin_c25-627831.html As you can see from the URLs, there is a chance that those might change. Stephen Farrell had the same comment. > > 2.For the definition of Classification engine IDs in section 4.1 for > the non standard values like PANA-L3, PANA-L4, PANA-L7, PANA-L2, is > there a requirement that the selector IDs will be publically available? > Yes. Also, they would be exported with an IPFIX Options Template Record. An example of PANA-L3 was the IPFIX port, 4739, which was pre-reserved by IANA, 3 years before RFC5101 was published. > 3.In section 4.2 "However, an IANA L3 protocol encoding may encoded > with 3 bytes." When is it encoded in 3 bytes, also figure 2 is not > reflecting this example, I expected to see a 32 bit value according to > the text and not a general figure. (small nit in the above sentence > "may be" instead of "may". > Will be corrected. > > 4.In section 7 I noticed that "p2pTechnology, tunnelTechnology, and > encryptedTechnology" are already assigned in the IANA IPFIX > Information elements so why assign them again as new? > from RFC5102: The value of these identifiers is in the range of 1-32767. Within this range, Information Element identifier values in the sub-range of 1-127 are compatible with field types used by NetFlow version 9 [RFC3954 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3954>]. So basically, if Cisco has assigned those numbers already, they can reused in IANA. > > 5.In section 7 I noticed that you request that the > applicationDescription, applicationId, applicationName, > classificationEngineId will receive elementid values from the range > 0-127. My reading from section 4.2 is this is not required, maybe add > text that will explain this request. > See my previous remark. > > 6.In the security section arethere additional considerations when the > applicationid information is coming from a proprietary classification > engine about authentication of the information source? > Not as far as I know. Maybe I'm missing something. Can you please elaborate. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1.In section 4.1 last sentence what is the meaning of "by theses > specifications" , I did not understand the context. > > 2.In section 6.6 "to determine whether or the default HTTP port" > delete the "or" > > 3.In section 6.6 "The Classification Engine ID is 2" should be "3". > will be corrected. Thanks again. Regards, Benoit. >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-expor… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Russ Housley