Re: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00

Aamer, Hadriel,

FYI, draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-02 says everything should be in one doc:

    Optionally, a Working Group or individual contributor may choose to
    publish an RFC detailing the new IPFIX application.  Such an RFC
    should contain discussion of the new application, the Information
    Element definitions as in Section 4, as well as suggested Templates
    and examples of the use of those Templates within the new application

P.

On 29/03/12 01:53, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
>
>> Based on the feedback from the IPFIX WG itself in one of the
>> meetings the IE allocation and the methodology were separated and moved
>> to another WG.
>
> I think the WG may want to reconsider that.  It creates two documents 
> which overlap significantly, except the IANA allocation one is less 
> text with fewer explicit details, while the methodology has the 
> details.  So an implementor would basically need to read both docs 
> anyway, and creating two documents to shepherd/publish is just extra 
> overhead for the submitter, IESG and RFC editor.  What's the real benefit?
>
> This is the diff of the files:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt>
>
> Seems kinda silly, no?
> Just my 2 cents, looking at it from the outside.
>
> -hadriel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix