Re: [IPFIX] draft-kashima-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring

[Shingo KASHIMA <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your review.

Please find tree answer for your comments inline.

The answer for the other comments are all
"yes, I will revise as your comments".

> >       Further Information Elements, i.e., dataLinkFrameType and
> >       dataLinkFrameSize are needed to specify the data link type and the
> >       size of the data link frame of this Information Element.  A set of
> >       these Information Elements MAY be contained in a structured data
> >       type, as expressed in another IPFIX WG draft.
> 
> You should specify the draft and include a reference.

I will refer to "Export of Structured Data in IPFIX
(draft-ietf-ipfix-structured-data-03.txt)".
Is that right ?


> > 4.4. dataLinkFrameOffset
> >
> >
> >    Description:
> >
> >       This Information Element specifies the offset of the observed
> >       dataLinkFrameSection within the data link frame.  If this
> >       Information Element is omitted, it defaults to zero.
> 
> I thought the intention was to create a generic "offset" field which 
> could be used with any packet section?

I also think a generic offset is better.
Then IE name should be changed to "sectionOffset".

But we have one problem.
We need to revise existing packet section IE's description.
Is this possible ?
- ipHeaderPacketSection
 carries a series of octets from the start of the IP header
                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ipPayloadPacketSection
 carries a series of octets from the start of the IP payload
                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
- mplsLabelStackSection
 carries the first n octets from the MPLS label stack
         ~~~~~~~~~
- mplsPayloadPacketSection
 carries the first n octets from the MPLS payload
         ~~~~~~~~~


> > 6. IANA Considerations
> >
> >
> >    This document requests that the Information Element IDs are allocated
> >    as shown in section 4.
> >
> >    In addition, the dataLinkFrameType Information Element requires the
> >    creation of new IANA registries.
> 
> I think only one new registry is needed for this. However, Nevil is 
> leading some discussion whether the values should be defined in the IE 
> description, rather than in separate registries.

I see.
To be defined in the IE description seems to be simple and good.

Best Regards,
Shingo.

-- 
Shingo KASHIMA <[e-mail]>
NTT Information Sharing Platform Lab.