I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-02.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 26-June-2009 IETF LC End Date: 30-June-2009 Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments:- Abbreviations should be expanded at first occurrence. This includes IPFIX (title), PR-SCTP (Abstract), PSAM (title of Section 1.2).
- Section 1 (Terminology) defines the Template Reuse Delay as follows:
The time the Exporting Process MUST wait after sending the
last Data Set described by a given Template before sending a
Template Withdrawal Message for the Template.
There is a normative "MUST" in that definition. I think it is not
acceptable to include a normative strength text within a definition. I
would recommend to replace the existing sentence with:
"The time the Exporting Process needs to wait...";then, elsewhere in the draft, you can add some text that includes the normative text, for example:
"Whatever-entity MUST wait the number of seconds indicated determined by the value of the Template Reuse Delay after sending the last Data Set described by a given Template before sending a Template Withdrawal Message for the Template."
- The first paragraph in Section 2 names the IPFIX working group. Since working groups are temporary arrangements (they eventually dismiss), and since the name of the WG is irrelevant for the content, I would remove it, and just mention that "The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101] has the goal of exporting IP Flow information."
- Section 2.1 talks about "IPFIX protocol specifications". Honestly, I am not very familiar with IPFIX and what a protocol "specification" is. I went to RFC 5101 and it is not obvious what a "specification" is in this context. I just hope the concept of a specification is clear for the reader of the draft. At least, it is not for me, so I wouldn't know how to interpret "All specifications from [RFC5101] apply unless specified otherwise in this document."
- Section 6 (IANA considerations). The draft fails to mention the registry IANA should act upon. Proposed text:
This document request IANA to allocate a new value to the dataRecordREliability Information Element in the IPFIX Information Elements registry.
- A number of Internet-Drafts listed int he References section have been published as RFC. Bear this in mind if you create a new version.
/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
