Kathleen et al - thanks for the review, re-review & the updates. Jari
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:07 PM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for addressing my Gen-art comments to improve readability from the > start of the document. > > Best regards, > Kathleen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Yourtchenko [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:09 PM > To: Moriarty, Kathleen > Cc: Paul Aitken; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09 > > Hello Kathleen, > > Today we've uploaded the new revision > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-10 > > This document takes into the account the review comments (minus one technical > issue that is outside of the authors' control). > > Please let us know whether the new changes adequately addresses the review > comments. > > Many thanks! > > --a > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote: > >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> In that case, please update the abstract and introduction to make the >> intent of the document clear. It would be helpful for the reader to >> understand the intent as they start reading the document. >> >> >> >> The discussion referenced was posted to [email protected]. I think folks >> are addressing that discussion, so there is no need for me to jump >> into it. Here is a link that should pull up all the messages on this draft >> in the last month across all mailing lists: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=yourtchenko&qdr=m >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Kathleen >> >> >> >> From: Paul Aitken [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 4:17 PM >> To: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09 >> >> >> >> Kathleen, All, >> >> Apologies for jumping in here, but I wasn't privvy to the earlier discussion >> to which you allude. >> >> Summary: This draft extends RFC3954, but is specific to Cisco. >> >> >> No, this draft does not extend RFC 3954. >> >> RFC 3954 specifies the NFv9 Protocol and the associated Information >> Model. The model is extensible, and I own the netflow-police hat for >> reviewing, approving, and actioning NFv9 extensions. >> >> The IPFIX Protocol (RFC 7011) has its own Information Model (RFC 7012, >> IANA) which is also extensible upon application to IANA, subject to expert >> review by IE-doctors (RFC 7013). >> >> The yourtchenko-cisco-ies draft extends the IPFIX Information model. Per >> section 6 of the draft, "IANA Considerations": >> >> >> >> This document specifies several new IPFIX Information Elements in >> the >> >> IPFIX Information Element registry >> >> >> The IPFIX Information Model was initially based upon the NFv9 >> Information Model. Indeed, the two are generally considered to be synonymous. >> >> The extensions which are being added to the IPFIX model seek to retain >> that synonymity by describing NFv9 elements which were not known or >> defined at the time RFC 3954 was written. These can be adopted into >> the IPFIX Information Model to retain compatibility, rather than defining >> equivalent IPFIX elements with different IDs from NFv9 and thus complicating >> life for every netflow collector. >> >> Note that this is not a change to either the NFv9 or IPFIX protocols. >> >> >> P. >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
