Elwyn, find inline answers to your comments
thanks, Elisa
Comments: Use of RFC 2119 terminology that are not (apparently) restatements of the protocol documents: For example in Section 3.1 'If no Template becomes available, the event SHOULD be logged...'. I cannot trace the origin oif this (re-)statemment in Section 9 or 10 of the IPFIX protocol document. And immediately after the previous example: 'and the Transport Session reset (unless UDP is used), which will cause the Templates to be resent. The amount of time the Collecting Process waits for a Template before resetting SHOULD be configurable.' Again I cannot find requirements to this effect in sections 8-10 of the protocol. In section 4.5: 'To ensure accuracy the clocks SHOULD be synchronised to a UTC time source.' This is clearly a good idea but the protocol and info documents are silent on this matter.
all changed to lowercase
s6.2, first bullet at top of p18: s/topographically/topologically/ (I assume this is not about how high up the hill the Collector should be!)
yeah, done. (there were two of those and I just saw - and corrected - one during last review...)
Editorial: s4.4.3, para 1: 'However, for these records the need for alignment is limited the 32-bits alignement that always occur is sufficient.' This needs some punctuation and the spelling corrected, maybe s/is limited the 32-bits alignement/is limited; the 32-bits alignment/
proposed NEW text: There is no means for aligning Template Records within a Set. However, there is limited need for such a method, as Information Element specifiers are always 32-bit aligned, and 32-bit alignment is generally sufficient.
s4.7: Expand IPC
done
s7.3, para 5: s/section Section 7/Section 7/
done _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
