Re: [Int-dir] INTDIR Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08

[[e-mail]]

Hi Donald,

Thanks for the review.

All good suggestions. I went with all of the suggestions, except the refs: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/Donald-Eastlake/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt

Cheers,
Med

De : Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2024 00:08
À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : INTDIR Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08.txt>. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ .


Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION.

This is a straightforward document that fixes lots of inconsistencies and glitches in the IPFIX IANA Information Element registry.

I did not find any significant issues or technical problems with this document.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document:

Abstract: "a shortcoming" -> "shortcomings"

Abstract & Introduction: "calling" -> "citing" or "referencing"

Section 6.21.2: References to IEEE and ISO/IEC documents, if they are
worth including, should be real references.

Section 3, 2nd sentence: I think "should be" -> "is"

Section 4.4.2 & 4.5.2: although DCCP is included in the "e.g." list in
the last sentence of these sections, it is not included in their
Description paragraph and there is no reference to RFC 4340. These
should at least be consistent within the registry entry.

Section 6.10.2: listing RFC 3022 twice seems odd.

Section 9: This says to "update" the reference clause of the "IPFIX
Information Elements" registry with "this document". Suggest using
"add" rather than "update" as in

     request IANA to add [this document] to the references for the
     "IPFIX Information Elements" registry.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.