Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-02

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

Thanks for your quick response.

Regarding my comment/suggestion #4, it was more about retaining the
Security Considerations text that came from RFC7125 that this document
obsoletes unless there is some change in this document that obliviates
those considerations (which I am not sure is the case?).

That said, I'll leave this to the secdir/IESG review :-)

Thanks,
Ketan


On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:45 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thank you for the review. Good points.
>
> I made some changes to take into account your suggestions:
> https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/commit/dbac6f4ad7617f3e0165068fb2e6e0053095459b
> .
>
> Some comments from my side:
>
> * I agree that the writeup should include a mention about the track. FWIW,
> the point was raised in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-opsawg-an-update-to-the-tcpcontrolbits-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-information-element-00
> and also in the mailing list.
> * As we are not touching the data type currently defined for IE#6, I don't
> think it is worth the call out the type used here. No change is thus made
> to that part. Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Envoyé : mardi 2 mai 2023 16:32
> > À : [e-mail]
> > Cc : [e-mail]; last-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-
> > update-02
> >
> > Reviewer: Ketan Talaulikar
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >
> > 1) This document is Standards Track while the RFC7125 that it
> > obsoletes is Informational. Standards Track seems correct to me.
> > This may not be an issue - simply calling attention to this change
> > in status to be explained perhaps in the Shepherd Write-up down
> > the line?
> >
> > 2) In Sec 1, please check if the paragraph should be updated as
> > below:
> >
> > This document fixes that problem by removing stale information
> > from the IPFIX registry [IPFIX] and avoiding future conflicts with
> > the authoritative TCP registry [TCP-FLAGS].
> >
> > 3) Sec 3 does not cover all the fields of the IPFIX IANA Table.
> > Notably "Additional Information" field chould have been supplied
> > here instead of being described in IANA Section 4. Perhaps if
> > everything is stated in Sec 3 then the IANA considerations become
> > simpler and clearer?
> >
> > 4) Please consider if the additional text from Security And
> > Privacy Considerations from RFC7125 is required in addition to the
> > reference to the RFC7011. There is discussion related to DDOS in
> > section 1 of the document.
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>