Reviewer: Qin Wu Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document Updates IPFIX IANA Registry to fix several issues including consistency issues. This update help IANA to better structure the content in more consistent way and also help automate extraction of values from IANA registry. This document is well written and I believe it is ready for publication. However I have a few comments on the latest version v-03: Major issues: None Minor issues 1. Abstract: I believe IANA IPFIX registry is associated with all IPFIX related RFCs, I am wondering whether update to IANA IPFIX registry indicate update to all these IPFIX related RFC as well such as RFC7125,RFC7012 and etc? 2. Section 4.1.1 said: “ [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new Information Element to fix the last issue. ” It is not clear where or which section the procedure is specified from the first glance. If my understanding is correct, the solution to address the last issue is to define new IEs to address all the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IE limitations rather than simply specifying the procedure. To better clarify the relation between this document and [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] and understand where the procedure is specified, I propose the following change: s/ [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new Information Element/ Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new Information Element 3. Section 4.1.1 said: “ Note that some implementations may not be able to export all observed extension headers in a Flow because of a hardware of software limit (see, e.g., [I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits]. ” What is the reason for some implementation may not be able to export all observed extension headers in a Flow? Software limit, hardware limit or hardware/software limit, here the proposed change: s/a hardware of software limit/a hardware or software limit 4. Section 4.2.2 said: " 4.2.2. Update the Description of the tcpOptions IE This document requests IANA to update the description of the tcpOptions IE in the IANA IPFIX registry [IANA-IPFIX] as follows: " Section 3 said: " The current forwardingStatus entry in [IANA-IPFIX] deviates from what is provided in [RFC7270]. " Section 4 said: " This document requests IANA to update the description of the following entries in [IANA-IPFIX]. " You can see some places use "the IANA IPFIX registry [IANA-IPFIX]", some places use "IANA-IPFIX", it is not consistent. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
