On 31/10/2013 09:05, Paul Aitken wrote:
Thanks for the review, Ben.
As you pointed out, the description in 3.2.18 wrongly specified a
delta rather than a total; I've fixed it.
I also clarified the third paragraph of the Introduction to say that
the existing models don't yet contain enough elements - which is the
point of this draft.
Regarding section 4 / RFC 5477, the intention is that IANA's IPFIX
registry is the ultimate reference. We want to avoid new drafts
updating old RFCs.
That makes sense since RFC 7012 mentions that IANA registry is now THE
reference
The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX] is the
current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements.
Regards, Benoit
The IPFIX AD is considering how to proceed with that.
I'll publish a -07 with the changes.
Thanks,
P.
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-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-22-10
IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with one
problem that should be easily fixed.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
3.2.18:
Title of the data element suggests a total, but the description
sounds like a delta (i.e change since last report.)
-- section 4 and subsections
It looks like this draft updates at least RFC5477. If so, this should
be indicated in the header and in the abstract.
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section , 3rd paragraph:
Do you mean to say the existing data models do not contain the
elements needed, or that the models do not provide the right
foundation for the needed elements? The wording seems to indicate the
latter but I think you mean the former.
-- General:
Watch for missing articles.
.