Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 19 December 2011 14:03 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022AE21F8B6D for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:03:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 rs+FVYCRDvsA for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:03:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025E721F8B68 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:03:33 -0800 (PST)
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 pBJE3UY5022131 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:03:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.60.67.89] (ams-bclaise-8918.cisco.com [10.60.67.89]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBJE3UY2016993; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:03:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EEF4432.10309@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:03:30 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
References: <4ECABFF3.6040206@auckland.ac.nz> <4EEF08EF.1040004@cisco.com> <4EEF1B1A.3040001@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EEF1B1A.3040001@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000908000001070009070708"
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:03:35 -0000
Paul, You're right, we overlooked the errata. This is the reason why the reviews are required ;-) We'll correct this. Regards, Benoit. > Benoit, > > That's nice. However, I didn't see _any_ feedback. > > Did anyone review it? > > So let me do that now: > > > > Firstly, you haven't addressed _any_ of the 5815 errata. There are > five. Please address them in -bis. > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5815&rec_status=15&presentation=table > > > > Otherwise my comments are only editorial: > > > > Section 6: > > "{ ipfixSelectorFunctions 1}" > > - Whitespace imbalance around the { }. > > > > Section 6: > > "The specification of new MIB objects SHOULD follow the structure > specified in the next Section" > > - The next section is "6.1 The Selector Functions". Perhaps you > mean "8. MIB Definitions"? So it would be better to state the exact > section number. > > > > Section 6: > > - as a general comment, this would benefit from being broken into > a few smaller paragraphs to improve readability. > > > > Section 7.1: > > "the ENTITY MIB module[RFC4133]" > > - the reference runs into the text. Add space. > > > > Section 8.2: > > Description > > "subject to Expert Review RFC 5226" > > - too much space this time! :-) > > > "RFC [NewRFCNumber]" > > - to make the RFC Editor's job easier, use either "NewRFCNumber" > or "THISrfc", not both. > > > > Section 10: > > Further on, IANA will maintain ... > > "Further on" implies "at some time in the future", which seems > vague. I'd just drop those words and state, "IANA will create and > maintain ...". > > > > P. > > > On 19/12/11 09:50, Benoit Claise wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Apparently, this WGLC is finished. >> That would be great if we could advance this draft. >> As a reminder of the different references between the drafts: >> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt>status is MISSREF on draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib >> draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-04.txt <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib/> status is Waiting for AD Go-Ahead, because of the following normative reference >> >> [I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis] >> Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and G. Muenz, >> "Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information >> Export", draft-dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 (work in >> progress), October 2011. >> >> Note: This reference is actually >> draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 >> >> Conclusion: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 is the bottleneck to >> publish 3 RFCs >> >> Regards, Benoit. >>> >>> Hi all: >>> >>> As discussed at last week's meeting, the WG Last Call for this >>> draft (updated version of the IPFIX MIB) starts now, and will >>> end on Wednesday, 7 December. If you have comments on this, >>> please email them to the IPFIX list. >>> >>> Cheers, Nevil >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> IPFIX@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix >
- [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815… Nevil Brownlee
- Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc… Benoit Claise
- Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc… Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc… Benoit Claise