Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03

Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Tue, 18 September 2012 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
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 58D9721F85BB; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 a-gddVakpzvS; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A6621F847F; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFB9D930B; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:53:14 +0200 (MEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MgjCJ-IlxnZs; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:53:14 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAE7ED9309; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:53:14 +0200 (MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <009701cd6292$311290e0$9337b2a0$@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:53:14 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49FED771-B25D-4CCF-BE86-7647581398F6@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <009701cd6292$311290e0$9337b2a0$@gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03
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, 18 Sep 2012 14:53:16 -0000

Hi, Roni,

Many thanks for the review; I've addressed these points in the -04 revision of the document.

Best regards,

Brian

On Jul 15, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Roni Even wrote:

> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
> 
>  
> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03.
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date:2012–7–15
> IETF LC End Date: 2012–7–17
> IESG Telechat date:
>  
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
>  
> Major issues:
>  
> Minor issues:
> 1.       The registration procedure should mention NetFlow V9 expert review for 0-128. I think that in the IANA section it will be good to suggest update also for the Registration procedure and Reference of the IPFIX Information Elements registry.
> 2.       Section 5.1 should reference RFC5226 and say if it clarifies RFC5226 or adds some procedure.
> 3.       In section 5.2 is there a need for a specification to explain the change. The text is not clear about it.
> 4.       Section 5.3 say “Names of deprecated or obsolete Information Elements MUST NOT be reused.” What about the elementID can it be re-used?
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  
> 1.       Section 4.2 third paragraph “applications can to use reduced-size” should be “applications can use reduced-size”
> 2.       Section 4.8 first paragraph “enumerates those which Information Elements” should be “enumerates those Information Elements”
> 3.       In section 10.1 “these are described in and Section 10.3” I did not understand the “in and”, I assume something is missing here.
>  
>