Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 29 May 2012 23:14 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 3593B11E817B; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 CbDCCuNcQM6V; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D65911E8173; Tue, 29 May 2012 16:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4TNAkXF001703; Wed, 30 May 2012 01:10:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.88] (ams-bclaise-8917.cisco.com [10.60.67.88]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4TNAhH7023219; Wed, 30 May 2012 01:10:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4FC55773.3000803@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:10:43 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
References: <4f800f2f.634cb40a.13a1.ffff8003@mx.google.com> <4FBC219D.8070000@cisco.com> <4fbc8e3b.2968b40a.5c9a.4414@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4fbc8e3b.2968b40a.5c9a.4414@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060607070404000601010907"
Cc: me <bclaise@cisco.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
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, 29 May 2012 23:14:28 -0000
Hi Roni, [keeping only the open discussions] > > Hi Benoit, > > Thanks, see in-line > > Roni > > 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-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 > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6555/ps6601/presentation_c96-629396.html > and > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/ps6616/product_bulletin_c25-627831.html > 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 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-07#ref-CISCO>]. [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] http://www.cisco.com/go/application-registry 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 [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] is not available, 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 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/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 place. > Because the IANA registry currently contain "reserved for the corresponding IEs See "100-127 Reserved" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml > > > > 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. >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-expor… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Roni Even
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-e… Russ Housley