All - thank you for the review & the fixes! Jari
On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > The revised version addresses all of my Gen-ART review comments. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:16 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> A new draft version has been posted >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring/ >> >> >> Regards, Benoit >>> Thanks for the response. Those changes would address all of my comments. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Paul Aitken <[email protected]> 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. >>>> 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. >>> . >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
