Hi all,
I don't currently have an opinion on the proper process, but I do have a
few last call comments.
"5.3. IEs assigned for NetFlow v9 compatibility
ElementId: 105..126
These element IDs are not covered by this draft and left "as is",
i.e. for Netflow v9 compatibility."
should be
"5.3. IEs assigned for NetFlow v9 compatibility
ElementId: 105..127
These element IDs are not covered by this draft and left "as is",
i.e. for NetFlow v9 compatibility."
[change summary : 126 -> 127 and Netflow -> NetFlow ]
Despite the fact that Appendix B change 07 says its semantics were
changed to 'identifier' based on my comments semantics for
ipv4RouterSc(43) should be 'default'. To be fair I don't think I
originally specified what the semantics should be just that they
shouldn't be ipv4address.
Finally one nit that I'm somewhat ambivalent about. I'd not abbreviate
"Shortcut" to "Sc" in ipv4RouterSc.
With the above changes the document looks good to me.
-Andrew
On 01/21/2014 07:33 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX'
<draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-02-18. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document describes some additional Information Elements of Cisco
Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.