Senthil, please see inline:
Please see inline for [Senthil]
From: Paul Aitken <paitken(_at_)brocade(_dot_)com
<mailto:paitken(_at_)brocade(_dot_)com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM
To: Senthil Sivakumar <ssenthil(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
<mailto:ssenthil(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>>,
"draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Cc: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-06.txt>
(IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events)
Senthil, I hadn't realised you'd published a new version of the draft.
Please CC me if/when you update it again.
I've quickly reviewed the diffs between -06 and -07 :
1. Terminology
" /Any non-IPFIX terminology used to convey NAT events are described
in //this section./"
-> which section is "/this/" referring to? Since this paragraph seems
only to serve as an introduction to the third paragraph which only
contains a single exception, would it be better to remove these two
lines and go directly to the third paragraph? :
However, that causes
confusion in terminology used in NAT specific terms and IPFIX IEs.
Any non-IPFIX terminology used to convey NAT events are described in
this section.
[Senthil] How does this read?
The IPFIX Information Elements that are NAT specific are
created with
NAT terminology. In order to avoid creating duplicate IEs, IEs
are reused if they convey the same meaning.
This document uses the term timestamp for the Information
element which
defines the time when an event is logged, this is the same as
IPFIX
term observationTimeMilliseconds as described in [IPFIX-IANA].
Since
observationTimeMilliseconds is not self explanatory for NAT
implementors,
this document uses the term timeStamp.
That's good.
2. Introduction
"This document details the IPFIX Information Elements(IEs)"
-> No need to repeat "(IEs)" since this was already explained in the
Terminology section.
-> Remove the duplicated text:
The IPFIX Protocol [RFC7011] defines a generic push mechanism for
exporting information and events. The IPFIX Information Model
[IPFIX-IANA] defines a set of standard IEs which can be carried by
the IPFIX protocol.This document details the IPFIX Information Elements(IEs) that MUST be
logged by a NAT device that supports NAT logging using IPFIX. This document details the IPFIX Information
Elements(IEs) that MUST be logged by a NAT device that supports NAT
logging using IPFIX, and all the optional fields. The fields
specified in this document are gleaned from [RFC4787] and [RFC5382].
[Senthil] Done.
5.4. Quota exceeded Event types
-> In the "/The events that can be reported are .../", I'd like to see
the text be identical to the items listed in table 3 to remove any
possible ambiguity.
[Senthil] All of the events do match the table. The text is a little
more verbose and descriptive, so that the table doesn’t have to have
long text message.
Let me know if the below is any better than before.
The events that can be reported are the Maximum session
entries limit reached, Maximum BIB entries limit reached, Maximum
(session/BIB) entries per user limit reached, Maximum active hosts limit
reached or maximum subscribers limit reached and
Maximum Fragments pending reassembly limit reached.
+---------------------------------------+--------+
| Quota Exceeded Event Name | Values |
+---------------------------------------+--------+
| Maximum Session entries | 1 |
| Maximum BIB entries | 2 |
| Maximum entries per user | 3 |
| Maximum active hosts or subscribers | 4 |
| Maximum fragments pending reassembly | 5 |
+---------------------------------------+--------+
Good.
5.6.8.4.Global Address mapping high threshold reached
-> Extra whitespace at the period: "paired address pooling behavior ."
[Senthil] Done.
8.1. New Information Elements / natLimitEvent, natThresholdEvent,
-> typo: " describer in Table below."
-> you should remove the "Table 22" and "Table 23" descriptions under
those tables, because these won't make any sense when the text is
transcribed into IANA's registry. E
[Senthil] I am not sure I understand why, because in section 8.1, for
natInstanceI, internalAddressRealm, externalAddressRealm we have this
format of name/description/data type and references.
Why is natLimitEvent and natThresholdEvent different just because they
have their values defined?
You misunderstand: I mean the description text immediately underneath
the tables, specifically the text which says: "/Table 22: Quota Exceeded
event table/", "/Table 23: Threshold event table/", and "/Table 24: NAT
Event ID table/". I'm not talking about the table contents.
IANA will take the relevant sections from your draft into their IPFIX
registry. While "Table NN: whatever" makes perfect sense in the draft,
it makes no sense in IANA's IPFIX registry - so IANA would have to
selectively edit the definition you're providing. While I'm sure they're
capable of doing that, the issue would be avoided if those tables didn't
have descriptions.
8.2. Modified Information Elements / natEvent
-> Again, you can't modify the definitions of the existing values.
[Senthil] Is there a process on how to modify/deprecate the previously
defined values and replace it with new ones?
You can't modify the existing values, because there could be an unknown
number of existing devices already using those values. I hope that IANA
has already sent you feedback from the IPFIX expert reviewers indicating
the best way forward.
P.