Re: [IPFIX] New WG Last Call fordraft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-06.txt

[Gerhard Muenz <[e-mail]>]

>>> 5. Within section 6, it is not clear how to apply this
>>> configuration data model. Should this be harmonized with
>>> ipfix-configuration-model?
>> 
>> Yes, it shoudl be possible to use this as basis, like PASMP-TECH.
>> Should we just reference to the config-model or  do you suggest any
>> further alignment?
> 
> Since configuration per the configuration-model draft is done with
> YANG for NETCONF-compatibility, I think this should be handled as a
> model extension, with YANG defined for it. I'm neither a YANG nor a
> NETCONF expert; perhaps someone with more experience could pop in and
> say whether my suggestion makes any sense. :)

I had a brief look at section 6 without having read the entire draft.
It seems that FS_SELECTOR_ID is an enumerator for FS_TYPE. If this is
true, the following sentence is imprecise because only one of
FS_SELECTOR_ID and FS_TYPE is required for the configuration:
"A flow selection configuration consists of FS_SELECTOR_ID, FS_TYPE,
FS_SELECTOR PARAMETERS."

My recommendation is not to define any enumeration or names such as
FS_SELECTOR_ID and FS_TYPE. This should be done in the data model (i.e.
MIB or YANG draft) if needed and according to the corresponding
enumeration or naming style.

However, you should provide a description for every single parameter
that you propose. This text can be later copied into the data model draft.

Regards,
Gerhard