Hi all, I don't currently have an opinion on the proper process, but I do have a few last call comments. "5.3. IEs assigned for NetFlow v9 compatibility ElementId: 105..126 These element IDs are not covered by this draft and left "as is", i.e. for Netflow v9 compatibility." should be "5.3. IEs assigned for NetFlow v9 compatibility ElementId: 105..127 These element IDs are not covered by this draft and left "as is", i.e. for NetFlow v9 compatibility." [change summary : 126 -> 127 and Netflow -> NetFlow ] Despite the fact that Appendix B change 07 says its semantics were changed to 'identifier' based on my comments semantics for ipv4RouterSc(43) should be 'default'. To be fair I don't think I originally specified what the semantics should be just that they shouldn't be ipv4address. Finally one nit that I'm somewhat ambivalent about. I'd not abbreviate "Shortcut" to "Sc" in ipv4RouterSc. With the above changes the document looks good to me. -Andrew On 01/21/2014 07:33 AM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX' > <draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document describes some additional Information Elements of Cisco > Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > >