This document is simply too long to review. I'm about half way through, and
will not have time to complete the review before May 10th.
* In the TOC, all the OLD / NEW section names are distracting. It would be much
more readable if the TOC was limited to just two levels:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Why An RFC is Needed for These Updates? . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Update the Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. sourceTransportPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. destinationTransportPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. forwardingStatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
* In the Introduction, "some other parts" lacks context unless the reader is
familiar with RFC9565, RFC7125, and the WG process that took place. So simply
say, "some parts":
When OPSAWG was considering [RFC9565] which updates [RFC7125], the WG
realized that some other parts of the IANA IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) registry ...
* Typo in 4.1.2. NEW :
See the assigned tranport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and
SCTP) port numbers at https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-
names-port-numbers.
Also, please retain the UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP ordering. Same for 4.2.2, 4.4.2,
and 4.5.2.
See the assigned tranport protocol (e.g., TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP) port
numbers at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers.
* 4.2.2. NEW
"destination" x2 :
Description: The destination port identifier in the transport protocol header.
For transport protocols such as
UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP, this is the source port number given in the
respective header. This field MAY also
be used for future transport protocols that have 16-bit source port identifiers.
* 4.4.2. NEW
There's no mention of DCCP in the description, nor reference to [RFC4340],
though DCCP is mentioned in the last paragraph of Additional Information.
* 4.5.2. NEW
Traffic is sent from a source port, not to it:
The source port identifier to which the Exporting Process sends Flow
information.
There's no mention of DCCP in the description, nor reference to [RFC4340],
though DCCP is mentioned in the last paragraph of Additional Information.
* 6.3.2. NEW
No, it's the "flow end reason" registry:
See the Classification Engine IDs registry available at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-flow-end-reason].
* 6.4.2. New
"See the NAT originating address realm registry at ..."
Additional Information: See the assigned NAT originating address realm at
* 6.5.2. New
"See the NAT Event Type registry at"
Additional Information: See the assigned NAT Event Types at
* 6.6.2. NEW
"See the firewallEvent registry at"
Additional Information: See the assigned firewall events at
Same comment for many other sections. ie, where the text says, "Values are
listed in the xyz registry.", the Additional Information should say, "See the
xyz registry at ..."
* 6.11.2 NEW
Please append [RFC5102<https://www.iana.org/go/rfc5102>] here.
For the methods parameters, Information Elements are defined in the information
model document [RFC5102].
* Typo in 6.12.2. NEW :
Additional Information: See the assigned emelement data types at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
information-element-data-types].
* 6.13.2. NEW
The ; should be a . as "The special value" is a new sentence:
subregistry; the special value 0x00 (default) is used
(Stopped at 6.14)
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
