Hi Roni,
[keeping only the open discussions]
Hi Benoit,
Thanks, see in-line
Roni
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012--4--7
IETF LC End Date: 2012--4--17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In sections 2, 4.1 (PANA-L7), 5, 6.5 the draft points to information
in Cisco web page. I could not locate and information that is
referenced. The link is to the main Cisco web page. For example in
section 6.5 it lists the selectorID as 10000, where is this value located?
The exact URsL are
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6555/ps6601/presentation_c96-629396.html
and
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/ps6616/product_bulletin_c25-627831.html
As you can see from the URLs, there is a chance that those might change.
Stephen Farrell had the same comment.
RE: My concern was that going to Cisco web page I tried to search for
the information using the search window and could not find it so I
think that this link is not helpful for finding the information.
Understood. We propose
1. to remove all references to [CISCO] in the draft, except in the appendix
2. to add the following text
Appendix X (non normative)
A reference to the Cisco Systems assigned numbers for the Application Id
and
the different attribute assignments can be found at [CISCO
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-07#ref-CISCO>].
[CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] http://www.cisco.com/go/application-registry
3. However, it will take a couple of days to set up this new URL. So we
propose to add
RFC-EDITOR NOTE: at the time of publication, if the
[CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] is not available,
this appendix must be removed
Does it work for you?
In section 7 I noticed that "p2pTechnology, tunnelTechnology, and
encryptedTechnology" are already assigned in the IANA IPFIX
Information elements so why assign them again as new?
from RFC5102:
The value of these identifiers is in the range of 1-32767. Within
this range, Information Element identifier values in the sub-range of
1-127 are compatible with field types used by NetFlow version 9
[RFC3954 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3954>].
So basically, if Cisco has assigned those numbers already, they can
reused in IANA.
RE: The question is if you want the existing assignment to be used
without change than why have this information in the IANA
consideration in the first place.
Because the IANA registry currently contain "reserved for the
corresponding IEs
See "100-127 Reserved" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml
In section 7 I noticed that you request that the
applicationDescription, applicationId, applicationName,
classificationEngineId will receive elementid values from the range
0-127. My reading from section 4.2 is this is not required, maybe add
text that will explain this request.
See my previous remark.
RE: OK, even though it should be clear that this applies to these
specific selectors since you want them to be compatible with NetFlow
version 9 and it is not a general request for using specific sub range
for all selectors.
Nits/editorial comments:
1.In section 4.1 last sentence what is the meaning of "by theses
specifications" , I did not understand the context.
2.In section 6.6 "to determine whether or the default HTTP port"
delete the "or"
In section 6.6 "The Classification Engine ID is 2" should be "3".
All corrected in to-be-posted-version.
Regards, Benoit.
will be corrected.
Thanks again.
Regards, Benoit.