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

Ben Campbell <> Tue, 22 October 2013 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DD911E81BA; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.144
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tfyDwfmq4QyK; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B776B11E82A5; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r9MMaNaJ068860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:36:24 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
From: Ben Campbell <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:36:25 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: " Team (" <>, " list" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:36:38 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


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:


Minor issues:


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.