Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt

Ok, more clear now.
So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send you a version.

Best,
> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com> wrote:
> 
> Abdelkader, it was me who did the IE-doctors review. That's only concerned with the IANA request; it's not an IPFIX review of the document.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:
>> Hello,
>> We haven’t really get a "proper review" of the document by IPFIX experts. Recently, we had a discussion with IANA and they asked IE-doctors to make a review, since that we received some points to be fixed regarding the proposed IE. I can forward to you the other comments from IE-doctors that we have received by IANA.
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in the document.
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts?
>>> 
>>> I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign up for that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B:
>>> 
>>> Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2.
>>> 
>>> Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the figure shows 9 bits rather than 8.
>>> 
>>> Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The "geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined.
>>> 
>>> Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3.
>>> 
>>> Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and "geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined.
>>> 
>>> Figure 9: The sizes of the "CivicValue" data fields are not shown correctly. eg, "Inria Nancy-Grand Est" is depicted in 6 octets when it should contain 21. Therefore the Figure is misleading and difficult to understand; it is not a good example. Please redraw the figure correctly. Please mark the variable-lengths eg "vlen = 21".
>>> 
>>> Figure 11:
>>>    The Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs in Figure 10 (306, 307, 308).
>>>    Again, the "Inria Nancy-Grand Grand Est" field is depicted in 6 octets rather than the requisite 27. Without the repeated "Grand", the 21 would be correct. Please write "vlen=21"
>>>    The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt

Attachment: signature.asc