Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

"Roni Even" <> Wed, 30 May 2012 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FECB21F8673; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.444
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZQfe3VFadkg; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (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;; 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 with SMTP id l20mr9909939wej.115.1338352603969; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ( []) by with ESMTPS id f19sm52415571wiw.11.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 29 May 2012 21:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <>
To: 'Benoit Claise' <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 07:34:27 +0300
Message-ID: <>
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:, 'IETF' <>,
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 04:36:55 -0000

Hi Benoit,

Your proposals are OK with me



From: Benoit Claise [] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:11 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc:;; 'IETF'; me
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of


Hi Roni,

[keeping only the open discussions]

Hi Benoit,

Thanks, see in-line



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


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
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
#ref-CISCO> ].

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
            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 <> ].

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

Because the IANA registry currently contain "reserved for the corresponding
See "100-127 Reserved" at 


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.