[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 12 November 2012 17:32 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 9048A21F862E; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:32:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.315, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzDfewvuao7d; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955C521F86CB; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:32:25 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAAEvoFDGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEw1WBCIIeAQEBAQIBEh4KPwUNARUHDgYMDAdXAQQBGgEZh2IGC54mnAGRfmEDlxiEcYo2gnA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,759,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="35752013"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2012 12:25:09 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2012 12:30:10 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:32:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04084693EB@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07
Thread-Index: Ac3A+6vH5icZKWrlTQS9LiERx0FK1Q==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07
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: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:32:26 -0000
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 11/12/12 IETF LC End Date: 11/13/12 IESG Telechat date: 11/15/12 Summary: The draft is ready for publication, a few minor issues should be clarified before approval and publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: 1. The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: > Aggregated Flow: A Flow, as defined by [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis], derived from a set of zero or more original Flows within a defined Aggregation Interval. The primary difference between a Flow and an Aggregated Flow in the general case is that the time interval (i.e., the two-tuple of start and end times) of a Flow is derived from information about the timing of the packets comprising the Flow, while the time interval of an Aggregated Flow is often externally imposed. Note that an Aggregated Flow is defined in the context of an Intermediate Aggregation Process only. Once an Aggregated Flow is exported, it is essentially a Flow as in [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and can be treated as such. The way the second phrase is written confuses me. If 'the time interval of an Aggregated Flow' is <often> externally imposed, this means that there are exceptions? In which cases? And in these cases what is the specific difference that makes that Flow to be Aggregated? 2. In Section 5.3.1 the URL quoted for the IPFIX Information Elements registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html does not exist. 3. The IANA Note in section 7.2.4 is supposed to be left in the text? If not, is it necessary to mention someplace else the issue of backwards compatibility with the IE value in NetFlow version 9? 4. Same question for the IANA note in Section 10. Nits/editorial comments: 1. Section 5.1.1: > Each counter for an Original Flow is divided by the number of time _units_ the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean count rate. What is the meaning of _units_? 2. Runing idnits leads to a number of formatting problems that I am sure will be corrected by the RFC Editor.
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)