Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00

Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com> Mon, 19 December 2011 11:08 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 376B921F8B53 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:08:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 z13Xz4q+y9Qn for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A537721F8B52 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:08:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=paitken@cisco.com; l=8555; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1324292890; x=1325502490; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=hKEnK2vjPqNZrmC3Nzi6rYJFqEuQQ/QilV3igOJ5ARQ=; b=c5AP7P9Y5sXZT7w214MeKWBHIUKpnLp8KdpNDnrER3Qv6dWwu0QsD3L3 Bzj8Z3ecV8Eyr/A54e4LcDn1jm+emJk0oUSNL4li2aa8EukW6S1STZixj wN08FPUReZ/AOgQvx5l/eYeI2kmnDi9lvxIuxD9e1tLDnpECabglgm69b s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.71,375,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="124116793"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2011 11:08:08 +0000
Received: from [10.55.94.100] (dhcp-10-55-94-100.cisco.com [10.55.94.100]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBJB88It020693; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:08:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4EEF1B1A.3040001@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:08:10 +0000
From: Paul Aitken <paitken@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipfix@ietf.org
References: <4ECABFF3.6040206@auckland.ac.nz> <4EEF08EF.1040004@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EEF08EF.1040004@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090403090603020302070602"
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00
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: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:08:12 -0000

Benoit,

That's nice. However, I didn't see _any_ feedback.

Did anyone review it?

So let me do that now:



Firstly, you haven't addressed _any_ of the 5815 errata. There are five. 
Please address them in -bis.

     
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5815&rec_status=15&presentation=table



Otherwise my comments are only editorial:



Section 6:

     "{ ipfixSelectorFunctions 1}"

     - Whitespace imbalance around the { }.



Section 6:

     "The specification of new MIB objects SHOULD follow the structure 
specified in the next Section"

     - The next section is "6.1 The Selector Functions". Perhaps you 
mean "8.  MIB Definitions"? So it would be better to state the exact 
section number.



Section 6:

     - as a general comment, this would benefit from being broken into a 
few smaller paragraphs to improve readability.



Section 7.1:

     "the ENTITY MIB module[RFC4133]"

     - the reference runs into the text. Add space.



Section 8.2:

     Description

     "subject to Expert Review  RFC 5226"

     - too much space this time! :-)


     "RFC [NewRFCNumber]"

     - to make the RFC Editor's job easier, use either "NewRFCNumber" or 
"THISrfc", not both.



Section 10:

     Further on, IANA will maintain ...

     "Further on" implies "at some time in the future", which seems 
vague. I'd just drop those words and state, "IANA will create and 
maintain ...".



P.


On 19/12/11 09:50, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Apparently, this WGLC is finished.
> That would be great if we could advance this draft.
> As a reminder of the different references between the drafts:
> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt>status is MISSREF on draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib
> draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-04.txt  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib/>  status is Waiting for AD Go-Ahead, because of the following normative reference
>
>        [I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis]
>                    Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and G. Muenz,
>                    "Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information
>                    Export", draft-dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 (work in
>                    progress), October 2011.
>
>                Note: This reference is actually 
> draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00
>
> Conclusion: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 is the bottleneck to 
> publish 3 RFCs
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>>
>> Hi all:
>>
>> As discussed at last week's meeting, the WG Last Call for this
>> draft (updated version of the IPFIX MIB) starts now, and will
>> end on Wednesday, 7 December.  If you have comments on this,
>> please email them to the IPFIX list.
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix