[IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07
Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com> Thu, 01 November 2012 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <paitken@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 D855F21F89F4 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFWS+6n2UmOV for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7573621F943F for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5781; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351807741; x=1353017341; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=xrJgLRxVhX5hVPbl+TGGsqzKfmrnn9QdoqyBWP+9myk=; b=AzGTVKccxCd+I4hX9RoCIPa3ZbFulNgWrJOKLJ8NdNgDbEM7R4hTozlv PMJXJg/WKObODtOCnlPLz2lDSGrAvgIR3K2y9HpUWtm5hTIGDwSovO2Da rDKR1djJlDB1+diAjxJaaoVvMD1KPPNrXRT62CKzlUJVR0i6knf+9M/rj w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkEFAO3xklCQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABEgyyISrc/gQiCHwEBBBIBFFEBECwWDwkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQEeh2Scf6ArkjYDkkaDMoVqiG6Ba4Jv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,695,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="77939219"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2012 22:08:59 +0000
Received: from [10.61.102.64] (dhcp-10-61-102-64.cisco.com [10.61.102.64]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA1M8w9j020867; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 22:08:59 GMT
Message-ID: <5092F2FA.1090104@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:08:58 +0000
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Trammell <trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <500039DE.5050706@cisco.com> <071B9C0F-B58F-489A-99E1-A3A4A4D25382@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <5092E68B.8070902@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5092E68B.8070902@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000907030708010300050300"
Cc: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n@tools.ietf.org, IETF IPFIX Working Group <ipfix@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:09:03 -0000
Having missed the WGLC announcement and just seen the IESG LC announcement, I thought I should quickly review the 04->05->06->07 diffs. As usual I have just a few minor points which I hope are helpful. Sorry things are a bit jumbled up this time, which is due to reviewing the three versions in order rather than the larger 04->07 all at once. Section 3, 5th paragraph: I think the paragraph means to say that conversion between Flows is possible. However, I mis-read that the IEs can be converted within a flow - so there's potential ambiguity here: While much of the discussion in this document, and all of the examples, apply to the common case that the Original Flows to be aggregated are all of the same underlying type (i.e., are represented with identical Templates or compatible Templatescontaining a core set Information Elements which can be freely converted to one another), and Also, there's a missing "of": with identical Templates or compatible Templates containing a core set*of*Information Elements Section 8: Why was "pt" used for "protocolIdentifier"? Surely "pr" would have been more obvious choice and less easily confused with "Port". Under Figure 19: remove ";" : After applying the interval distribution step to the source data in Figure 10,*;* the Partially Aggregated flows are shown in Figure 20. Under Figure 24: remove space before the comma: information from the Original Flows in Figure 10 , and as such is not Section 6.2: Note that when aggregating flows from multiple Metering Processes with different active timeouts, the delay is *determined by* the maximum active timeout. - it's not so much "determined by" as "proportional to", because an allowance should also be made for other delays. Section 3, paragraph 4: s/anonymising/anonymizing/ for consistency with the 8 other uses in the doc. Section 8: The data records given as input to the examples in this section are shown below; say "in Figure 10", else the figure isn't referenced until after Figure 12. P.
- [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Paul Aitken
- [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07 Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07 Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Paul Aitken
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Brian Trammell
- Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-04 Paul Aitken