[Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 CD9C621E8026 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bSHvc5ci9x5h for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DE921E8018 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A519103F13 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E78F322332; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.17.114.244] (207.47.24.2.static.nextweb.net [207.47.24.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18D74322330; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F46E769.1030401@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:27:05 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
References: <4F46C2A2.2050901@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F46C2A2.2050901@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis@tools.ietf.org, Quittek@neclab.eu
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01.txt
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:27:05 -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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-01.txt
     Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information Export
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 23-Feb-2012
IETF LC End Date: 8-March-2012
IESG Telechat date: 15-March-2012

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard.  While each individual item below is minor, the collection is 
sufficiently confusing that I would like to see them resolved before 
publication.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
     The description in the first paragraph of 5.2 on the Template table 
is written in such a way as to lead the reader to think the Observation 
Domain is somehow associated with the Transport Session (which table 
provides the device mode which is discussed in that text.)  Could you 
split the Observation Domain reference out to a separate sentence 
(possibly before the reference to the Transport Session)?

     In the example of the export table in section 5.4, there are two 
blocks of export entries, on with ipfixExportIndex 7, and one with 8. 
They are mirrors of each other except that they reverse which transport 
session is primary, and which is secondary.  There is no explanation of 
why both are present.  And there is no explanation of why the settings 
in index 7 are used, rather than those in index 8.

     If you define an Observation Point with 0 for both Physical Entity 
and Physical Interface, what is it observing?  Similarly, what is a 
metering process metering if its Observation Point Group Ref is 0?