Hi Paul,
Thank you for the review. The changes can be tracked at: Diff:
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08.txt -
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt<https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt>
Please see inline for more context.
Cheers,
Med
De : Aitken, Paul <pait...@ciena.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 8 mai 2024 11:42
À : drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
Cc : ie-doct...@ietf.org; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
Objet : Re: [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1363822] Expert review for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes (ipfix)
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 ...
[Med] ACK.
* 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.
[Med] ACK
* 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.
[Med] Good catch. Fixed.
* 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.
[Med] Already fixed that one when addressing Donald's review.
* 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.
[Med] ACK.
There's no mention of DCCP in the description, nor reference to [RFC4340],
though DCCP is mentioned in the last paragraph of Additional Information.
[Med] Already fixed that one when addressing Donald's review.
* 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].
[Med] ACK.
* 6.4.2. New
"See the NAT originating address realm registry at ..."
Additional Information: See the assigned NAT originating address realm at
[Med] ACK
* 6.5.2. New
"See the NAT Event Type registry at"
Additional Information: See the assigned NAT Event Types at
[Med] The OLD is correct, but I understand that echoing the registry name is
explicit that this is about "assigned xxx values". Went with this modif.
* 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 ..."
[Med] ACK.
* 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].
[Med] OK as that was the intent at the time. However, given that 5102 is
obsoleted, should we simply point to the registry itself instead of 5102?
* 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].
[Med] ACK.
* 6.13.2. NEW
The ; should be a . as "The special value" is a new sentence:
subregistry; the special value 0x00 (default) is used
[Med] ACK.
(Stopped at 6.14)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
