Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 09:48 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 DC1CD21F8773 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.808, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_ONLINE=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 V9z38VWqM2lw for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA8C21F876F for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAEF2lk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEsWmBB4IJAQEBAQMBAQEPHhkiAxcEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBqHbQudHZ1SiWeHBGMEiC+DF5BKSolegms
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,473,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="343972183"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2012 05:47:51 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2012 05:31:25 -0400
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:48:08 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407810A8C@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <000e01cd2164$293ef350$7bbcd9f0$@dantonio@uniparthenope.it>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0HgYT2PNNa/4XrS9iDIJxRD2mpEwZ4Hx+gACdPtTA=
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407638B8F@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <000e01cd2164$293ef350$7bbcd9f0$@dantonio@uniparthenope.it>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Salvatore D'Antonio <salvatore.dantonio@uniparthenope.it>, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:48:13 -0000
Hi Salvatore, Thank you for addressing the issues raised in my review. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Salvatore D'Antonio [mailto:salvatore.dantonio@uniparthenope.it] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:17 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'IETF IPFIX Working Group' > Subject: R: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech- > 10.txt > > Dear Dan, > > The new version of the Internet Draft on Flow Selection Techniques has > been > published. > > Answers to yours comments inline. > > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: ipfix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Inviato: mercoledì 21 marzo 2012 17:42 > A: IETF IPFIX Working Group > Oggetto: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech- > 10.txt > > Please find below the AD review of > draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt. > > The document is in a good enough shape to be sent to IETF LC. Please > consider my comments together with the other IETF LC comments. > > The comments are divided into T (Technical) and E (Editorial). > > T1. In section 5.1.2: > > Nevertheless there MAY be the incentive to apply Hash- > based Flow Filtering not on the packet level during the Metering > Process, for example when the size of the selection range and > therefore the sampling probability is dependent on the number of > observed flows. > > I think that the usage of a capitalized RFC 2119 MAY is not justified > here. > > Agreed. MAY has been replaced by may. > > T2. In section 6.1 please provide references for the hash functions > mentioned as possible functions. > > Done. References for the mentioned hash functions have been added. > > T3. In section 7: > > In this section we describe Information Elements (IEs) that SHOULD > be > exported by a flow selection process in order to support the > interpretation of measurement results from flow measurements where > only some flows are selected. > > Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases? > > Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST. > > T4. Also in section 7: > > All counters SHOULD be exported and reset when a new > measurement interval starts. > > Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases? Are > exporting counters and reset of counters independent, in other words > can > some counters be exported but not reset when a new measurement interval > starts? > > Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST. > > T5. Where are allocated all the IDs marked as TBD in the table in > Section 7? I do not see a request for allocation in the IANA > considerations section. What am I missing? > > The IDs that were marked as TBD in the table and not mentioned in the > IANA > Considerations section have been removed from the table. > > T6. Even if configuration methods and protocols are out of the scope of > this document I believe that this statement in the Security > Considerations section is not sufficient: > > Nevertheless, a full analysis and assessment of threats for > configuration and reporting has to be done if configuration or > reporting methods are proposed. > > I think that this document needs at least make a complete assessment of > the threats and place requirements in the configuration and reporting > methods to be later defined. > > A new Security Considerations section has been added to the document. > > E1. Three of the missing references prompted up by idnits seem to be > indeed missing references: > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 868, but not > defined > 'administered by IANA and are subject to Expert Review > [RFC5226...' > > Reference to RFC5226 has been added. > > == Missing Reference: 'I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis' is mentioned on > line > 1330, but not defined > 'according to the procedures set forth in > [I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815b...' > > Reference to RFC5815 has been added. > > == Missing Reference: 'GoRe07' is mentioned on line 1372, but not > defined > '[GoRe07]....' > > Reference [GoRe07] has been updated. > > E2. Drop the comma from 'The reason is, that flow-state dependent ...' > > Fixed > > E3. Section 5.2.1: > > Systematic sampling MAY BE applied during the Metering > Process. > > BE needs not be capitalized. > > Fixed. > > E4. It would be useful to nuumber the Tables in the document like the > one in Section 6, for later references in other documents. > > Done. > > Best regards, > > Salvatore > > > > > > Regards, > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > IPFIX@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > ----- > Nessun virus nel messaggio. > Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com > Versione: 2012.0.1913 / Database dei virus: 2114/4884 - Data di > rilascio: > 21/03/2012
- [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-select… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- [IPFIX] R: AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-sel… Salvatore D'Antonio
- Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-se… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)