Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art Last Call/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-09

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 19 November 2015 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F341ACD12; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aoj70jUwxJaz; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 633381ACD11; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:30:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5269; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447921833; x=1449131433; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2AoMIF4v9TgHejFKT3/dtobn9+G7Qs/iPMGfoXShK9g=; b=VrJR65pxOPJ/srEbp090F++EQmysdiRZ2b6waYEXAhhqN6i51xGpvgxZ KUSR/S3YCdH8i32pLPqn+NUPxo82m1NpfXxIFQOwoBOvNxp4kytLNlieU U6mnxXJqKwhXVDYvE2LaZjmCGkLCno8brs5tRSXCdx+mnp0ibo9i185J0 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D4AQCuh01W/xbLJq1ehA5vAb5rAQ2BZ?= =?us-ascii?q?SGFbgKBeBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBBCMVMw0BEAsUBgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQw?= =?us-ascii?q?IAQGIKg2ua5A1AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBG4EBhVOEfoQgFINBgUQBBJZKh?= =?us-ascii?q?SGICoFbSYN3gwIjjxODch8BAUKCER0WgUE9NYNVCReBKgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,317,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="612874141"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2015 08:30:31 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.93] (ams-bclaise-89112.cisco.com [10.60.67.93]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAJ8UURQ004945; Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:30:30 GMT
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <56474E2E.6070001@dial.pipex.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <564D88A6.3090809@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:30:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56474E2E.6070001@dial.pipex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UMEpis68_FIyrE2JBIs3Dp1E7BI>
Cc: draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art Last Call/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:30:37 -0000

Thank you Elwyn for your review.

Regards, Benoit
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-variable-export-09.txt
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2015/11/14
> IETF LC End Date: 2015/10/26
> IESG Telechat date: 2015/11/19
>
> Summary: Ready except for some minor nits, chiefly associated with the 
> unexplained use of 'magic numbers' that are defined elsewhere in the 
> IPFIX specifications (see comments on ss5.3, 5.4.2 and 6.3).  I was 
> (however) impressed by the quality of the document, which is 
> consistent in its presentation and deals clearly with a complex (and, 
> frankly, pretty dry as dust) specification.  Most of the points below 
> are primarily to make the document more easily accessible to people 
> (like me) with limited exposure to IPFIX. Caveat:  I have read through 
> the examples (Section 6) but I cannot say that I have analysed them in 
> gory detail.
>
> Apologies for the late delivery of this review.  I missed the 
> assignment during the last call period.  In the light of the quality 
> of the document, I don't think this should have any effect on the 
> progress of the document!
>
> Major issues:
> None.
>
> Minor issues:
> None.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> General: s/i.e./i.e.,/g (4 instances)
> s/e.g./e.g.,/ (1 instance in s10)
>
> s2, para 1:  Probably good to provide a pointer to the doc/section 
> where Template Record and Data Record are defined as this section 
> precedes s3 where the terminology is specified.
>
> s4, para 2: s/non columnar/non-columnar/ (?)
>
> s4, third para from end: s/One common type/Two common types/
>
> s5, para 5:
>>     However, future versions of IPFIX may export the required MIB
>>     metadata as part of newer set versions.
> Is the phrase 'newer set versions' a term of art here?  Maybe change 
> to 'newly defined version(s)' or maybe 'newly defined Set versions [or 
> just Sets]'?
>
> s5.1, para after Table 1: s/encoding references/encoding reference/
>
> s5.3, bullet points: To clarify Set ID entries in the figures 
> describing the various templates/data sets it would be worth noting 
> the SetID(s) that can be used with the various template and data 
> records and a reference to RFC 7011 Section 3.3.2.
> I think that bullet 1 has Set ID 2, bullet 2 has Set ID 3 and bullets 
> 3 and 4 have Set IDs from 256 upwards (implementation choice).
>
> s5.4.2, last para and Figure 5:  It would be helpful to remind people 
> that the value 0xffff/65535 indicates variable length encoding  per 
> RFC 7011 Section 3.2 and that the RECOMMENDED use of variable length 
> encoding for mibObjectIdentifier fields is indicated in subsequent 
> figures by placing 65535 in the relevant length fields.  Presumably 
> Collector implementations  MUST accept a specific length encoding in 
> the usual IETF spirit!  It might be worth being explicit about this 
> (this might usefully be said in Section 8).
>
> s5.7.2, para 1:  The MUST ought to be qualified by 'except as allowed 
> by the caveat of Section 5.7.1'.
>
> s5.7.2: is there any need to explain how withdrawal is achieved? I am 
> not an IPFIX expert so I am not aware how the withdrawal might be 
> achieved.
>
> s5.8, para 5: s/may be used purely use as a data type./may be used 
> purely as a data type./ ( I think)
>
> s5.8, last para: is missing its terminal period/full stop. :-(
>
> s5.8.1, last para: s/be exported/to be exported/
>
> s6.2, bullet 2 after Table 3: is missing its terminal period/full 
> stop. :-(
>
> s6.2, 3rd from last para (top of page 40): s/encoded/encode/;  It 
> would also be useful to point the reader back to the template for 
> mibObjectValueGauge in Table 23 where the encoding size is specified.
>
> s6.3:  This section is somewhat politically incorrect in that it deals 
> (only) with IPv4 addresses ;-)
>
> s6.3, Table 4 (also Table 9):  The aesthetics of this table could be 
> improved by reducing the width of the Object column by 7 characters 
> and reallocating them to the ID (+4) and mibObjectValue (+3) columns.  
> Similarly in Table 5, moving a character from the Entity column to the 
> Full OID column.
>
> s6.3, Figure 28:  For the benefit of less clued up readers, it would 
> be worth pointing out that this is a structured data type 
> specification using the 'undefined' (= 0xFF) semantic (RFC 6313, 
> Section 11.4/11.4.1) .  It would also be clearer to s/=FF/=0xFF/g. 
> Also applies to Figure 31 and Figure 42.
>
> s10: The discussion I think effectively covers issues of privacy 
> inherited both from SNMP/MiBs and IPFIX but it might be worth putting 
> in the 'P word' and expanding a bit more on this subject to make it 
> clear that accessing MiB objects  via IPFIX opens up a whole new 
> opportunity for privacy violations.
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>