IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ipfix] AD Evaluation of: draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-01.txt

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Mon, 22 December 2003 17:17 UTC

Received: from mil.doit.wisc.edu (mil.doit.wisc.edu [128.104.31.31]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25709 for <ipfix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:17:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by mil.doit.wisc.edu with local (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1AYTRX-0005YF-00 for ipfix-list@mil.doit.wisc.edu; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:02:07 -0600
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163] helo=ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by mil.doit.wisc.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1AYTRW-0005YA-00 for ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:02:06 -0600
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hBMH22e09626 for <ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:02:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <Z1K6NJ9J>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:57 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC41F@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "'Ipfix Wg' (E-mail) (E-mail)" <ipfix@net.doit.wisc.edu>
Cc: "'simon@limmat.switch.ch'" <simon@limmat.switch.ch>
Subject: [ipfix] AD Evaluation of: draft-leinen-ipfix-eval-contrib-01.txt
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: majordomo listserver <majordomo@mil.doit.wisc.edu>

Serious questions:
- Many of the documents for the protcools that were evaluated 
  are (possibly expired or soon to expire) internet-drafts.
  Are you sure they are just informative and that there is no
  need to read them in order to understand the evaluation?
  Possibly they are not needed (I think I can see that after
  reading the whol draft). It might be good to make an explicit
  statement at the end of section 1 to say that you have extracted
  the relevant information from the evaluation drafts and that
  the detailed content of those drafts is not needed to understand 
  this summary/executive/consolidated evaluation document.

- Anyway, 
  - I see that some have made it to RFC. 
    RFC3423 - draft-kzhang-crane-protocol-05.txt
    RFC3588 - draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-17.txt
  - These are still there as (very old) drafts
    draft-kzhang-ipfix-eval-crane-00.txt
    draft-zander-ipfix-diameter-eval-00.txt
    draft-calato-ipfix-lfap-eval-00.txt
    draft-bclaise-netflow-9-00.txt
  - I do not see/find:
    expired: draft-riverstone-lfap-01.txt
    expired: draft-riverstone-lfap-data-01.txt
    expired: draft-claise-ipfix-eval-netflow-04.txt
  And so on.
- 6.  Security Considerations
    The security mechanisms of the candidate protocols were discussed in
    the section about the Security requirement (6.3.2).
  I think it would be good to make a reference here to the doc that 
  contains that sect 6.3.2 !! And porbably you mean sect 6.3.3. in
  the ipfix requirements doc anyway!

Nits and admin comments

- abstract speaks about "this draft", you man "this document"
  draft dioes not read so well when it is an RFC.
- first sentence in sect 4.1 missing right parenthesis
- sect 4.10.3.2 3rd line: s/evel/level/
- ANy idea, where reference [NDM-U-3.1] can be obtained/accessed?
  

Thanks,
Bert 

--
Help        mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@net.doit.wisc.edu and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email