Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 31/10/2013 09:05, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Ben.
>
> As you pointed out, the description in 3.2.18 wrongly specified a 
> delta rather than a total; I've fixed it.
>
> I also clarified the third paragraph of the Introduction to say that 
> the existing models don't yet contain enough elements - which is the 
> point of this draft.
>
> Regarding section 4 / RFC 5477, the intention is that IANA's IPFIX 
> registry is the ultimate reference. We want to avoid new drafts 
> updating old RFCs.
That makes sense since RFC 7012 mentions that IANA registry is now THE 
reference

    The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX] is the
    current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements.

Regards, Benoit
> The IPFIX AD is considering how to proceed with that.
>
> I'll publish a -07 with the changes.
>
> Thanks,
> P.
>
>> 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-data-link-layer-monitoring-06
>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>> Review Date: 2013-22-10
>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10
>>
>> Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with  one 
>> problem that should be easily fixed.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> None
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> 3.2.18:
>>
>> Title of the data element suggests a total, but the description 
>> sounds like a delta (i.e change since last report.)
>>
>> -- section 4 and subsections
>>
>> It looks like this draft updates at least RFC5477. If so, this should 
>> be indicated in the header and in the abstract.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> -- section , 3rd paragraph:
>>
>> Do you mean to say the existing data models do not contain the 
>> elements needed, or that the models do not provide the right 
>> foundation for the needed elements? The wording seems to indicate the 
>> latter but I think you mean the former.
>>
>> -- General:
>> Watch for missing articles.
>
> .
>