RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

["Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Benoit,

Your proposals are OK with me

Roni

 

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:11 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; 'IETF'; me
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

 

Hi Roni,

[keeping only the open discussions]

Hi Benoit,

Thanks, see in-line

Roni

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

 

Document: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–4–7

IETF LC End Date: 2012–4–17

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

In sections 2, 4.1 (PANA-L7), 5, 6.5 the draft points to information in Cisco web page. I could not locate and information that is referenced. The link is to the main Cisco web page. For example in section 6.5 it lists the selectorID as 10000, where is this value located?

The exact URsL are http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6555/ps6601/presentation_c96-629396.html
and http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/ps6616/product_bulletin_c25-627831.html
As you can see from the URLs, there is a chance that those might change.
Stephen Farrell had the same comment.

 

RE: My concern was that going to Cisco web page I tried to search for the information using the search window and could not find it so I think that this link is not helpful for finding the information.

Understood. We propose
1. to remove all references to [CISCO] in the draft, except in the appendix
2. to add the following text
   
            Appendix X (non normative)

      A reference to the Cisco Systems assigned numbers for the Application Id and

      the different attribute assignments can be found at [CISCO].

      [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] http://www.cisco.com/go/application-registry

3. However, it will take a couple of days to set up this new URL. So we propose to add

            RFC-EDITOR NOTE: at the time of publication, if the [CISCO-APPLICATION-REGISTRY] is not available,
            this appendix must be removed

Does it work for you?

In section 7 I noticed that ”p2pTechnology, tunnelTechnology, and encryptedTechnology” are already assigned in the IANA IPFIX Information elements so why assign them again as new?

from RFC5102:

   The value of these identifiers is in the range of 1-32767.  Within

   this range, Information Element identifier values in the sub-range of

   1-127 are compatible with field types used by NetFlow version 9

   [RFC3954].

So basically, if Cisco has assigned those numbers already, they can reused in IANA.

 

RE: The question is if you want the existing assignment to be used without change than why have this information in the IANA consideration in the first place.

Because the IANA registry currently contain "reserved for the corresponding IEs
See "100-127 Reserved" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml

 

In section 7 I noticed that you request that the  applicationDescription, applicationId, applicationName, classificationEngineId will receive elementid values from the range 0-127. My reading from section 4.2 is this is not required, maybe add text that will explain this request.

See my previous remark.

 

RE:  OK, even though it should be clear that this applies to these specific selectors since you want them to be compatible with NetFlow version 9 and it is not a general request for using specific sub range for all selectors.

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

1.  In section 4.1 last sentence what is the meaning of “by theses specifications” , I did not understand the context.

2.  In section 6.6 “to determine whether or the default HTTP port” delete the “or”

In section 6.6 “The Classification Engine ID is 2” should be “3”.

All corrected in to-be-posted-version.

Regards, Benoit.

will be corrected.

Thanks again.

Regards, Benoit.