Hi Med,
Thanks for your quick response.
Regarding my comment/suggestion #4, it was more about retaining the Security Considerations text that came from RFC7125 that this document obsoletes unless there is some change in this document that obliviates those considerations (which I am not sure is the case?).
That said, I'll leave this to the secdir/IESG review :-)
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:45 PM <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ketan,
Thank you for the review. Good points.
I made some changes to take into account your suggestions: https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/commit/dbac6f4ad7617f3e0165068fb2e6e0053095459b.
Some comments from my side:
* I agree that the writeup should include a mention about the track. FWIW, the point was raised in https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-opsawg-an-update-to-the-tcpcontrolbits-ip-flow-information-export-ipfix-information-element-00 and also in the mailing list.
* As we are not touching the data type currently defined for IE#6, I don't think it is worth the call out the type used here. No change is thus made to that part. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> Envoyé : mardi 2 mai 2023 16:32
> À : rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
> call@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx
> Objet : Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-
> update-02
>
> Reviewer: Ketan Talaulikar
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> 1) This document is Standards Track while the RFC7125 that it
> obsoletes is Informational. Standards Track seems correct to me.
> This may not be an issue - simply calling attention to this change
> in status to be explained perhaps in the Shepherd Write-up down
> the line?
>
> 2) In Sec 1, please check if the paragraph should be updated as
> below:
>
> This document fixes that problem by removing stale information
> from the IPFIX registry [IPFIX] and avoiding future conflicts with
> the authoritative TCP registry [TCP-FLAGS].
>
> 3) Sec 3 does not cover all the fields of the IPFIX IANA Table.
> Notably "Additional Information" field chould have been supplied
> here instead of being described in IANA Section 4. Perhaps if
> everything is stated in Sec 3 then the IANA considerations become
> simpler and clearer?
>
> 4) Please consider if the additional text from Security And
> Privacy Considerations from RFC7125 is required in addition to the
> reference to the RFC7011. There is discussion related to DDOS in
> section 1 of the document.
>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
