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.
>