Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Wed, 30 May 2012 04:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 0FECB21F8673; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 aZQfe3VFadkg; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E968C11E80C7; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so2737826wib.13 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=5br74H5zE59Y29A6PxRb5bPP8qXRxrPaG/ImXFvabfo=; b=akrhoAgJPq+XMzr+t15JUDuJdo5eI4WPecwqzzM/CRziR7ALORu6Idxs98d71KIB2z L93NpugzHaDzHLeyTaWAwwuEPaASHgNO7JvXGPdMrYZ2pc2f2QK5ev6XgqlYDmvNNYzX EfwgGHLX6IzlT8nVlLzVsVSyINGMbU4oBoyd3t7yrOtyBviPaZWu9u5G0p6T4PHqu6CX gvWIn+K+RuvrWM/Go4xChoD8YUClB6EeYTGIkYVLshDcUSLyc7iqvcjbrsH+dPcvRERV BJYVA7icCq5z1y5OjfTwmeDEvZklYEVAFUNA/9uH3Wd3LnxgpLFUhL2w+DTOcbWnOPuY sVTw==
Received: by 10.216.143.148 with SMTP id l20mr9909939wej.115.1338352603969; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-177-198-116.red.bezeqint.net. [79.177.198.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f19sm52415571wiw.11.2012.05.29.21.36.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <4f800f2f.634cb40a.13a1.ffff8003@mx.google.com> <4FBC219D.8070000@cisco.com> <4fbc8e3b.2968b40a.5c9a.4414@mx.google.com> <4FC55773.3000803@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FC55773.3000803@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:34:27 +0300
Message-ID: <4fc5a3d9.f34bb40a.71e1.4c87@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01CD3E36.A698F2D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac098EkDfcSzloutTp2WdvYu0WEgvAALR5bw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 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: Wed, 30 May 2012 04:36:55 -0000
Hi Benoit, Your proposals are OK with me Roni From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:11 AM To: Roni Even Cc: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF'; me Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05 Hi Roni, [keeping only the open discussions] Hi Benoit, Thanks, see in-line Roni 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: 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/pre sentation_c96-629396.html and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/ps6616/pro duct_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. RE: My concern was that going to Cisco web page I tried to search for the information using the search window and could not find it so I think that this link is not helpful for finding the information. Understood. We propose 1. to remove all references to [CISCO] in the draft, except in the appendix 2. to add the following text Appendix X (non normative) A reference to the Cisco Systems assigned numbers for the Application Id and the different attribute assignments can be found at [CISCO <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-07 #ref-CISCO> ]. [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] http://www.cisco.com/go/application-registry 3. However, it will take a couple of days to set up this new URL. So we propose to add RFC-EDITOR NOTE: at the time of publication, if the [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] is not available, this appendix must be removed Does it work for you? 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. RE: The question is if you want the existing assignment to be used without change than why have this information in the IANA consideration in the first place. Because the IANA registry currently contain "reserved for the corresponding IEs See "100-127 Reserved" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml 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. RE: OK, even though it should be clear that this applies to these specific selectors since you want them to be compatible with NetFlow version 9 and it is not a general request for using specific sub range for all selectors. 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" In section 6.6 "The Classification Engine ID is 2" should be "3". All corrected in to-be-posted-version. Regards, Benoit. 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