[resending with IANA CC'ed as intended.]
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the NEW text that appears throughout this document,
we have updated it to include the registry name followed by the URL to the
registry group. Based on discussion with IANA, this was the preferred way to
refer to these registries in the RFC. Note that the extended URLs remain in
the OLD text, as it does not matter if these links cease to work in the future
(they are marked OLD).
For example: Section 6.2.2
Original:
Additional Information: See the Classification Engine IDs registry
([https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
ipfix.xhtml#classification-engine-ids]).
Current:
Additional Information: See the "Classification Engine IDs (Value
101)" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].
-->
2) <!--[rfced] FYI, similarly Table 1 has been updated to use the registry name
and the URL without the URI fragment, per IANA's preference for RFCs.
For example: "Additional Information" for 33 igmpType.
Original I-D:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/
igmp-type-numbers/igmp-type-
numbers.xhtml#igmp-type-numbers-1
Current document:
See "IGMP Type Numbers" at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/
igmp-type-numbers]
Current IANA registry (we will send a request to update to the
registry name):
See the assigned IGMP type numbers at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/igmp-type-numbers/
igmp-type-numbers.xhtml#igmp-type-numbers-1]
Note: Table 1 currently uses Form A, but if you prefer Form B,
please let us know.
Form A: See "Name" at [URL]
Form B: See the "Name" registry at [URL]
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1.2: To which registry does "IPFIX MPLS label type
registry" refer? We see the following registries at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values:
"Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values"
or "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values"
Original:
Additional Information: See the IPFIX MPLS label type registry
([https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values]).
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] Because it seems the pointers to the relevant registry were
moved
from the "Description" to "Additional Information", do you still want to
keep the sentence about where the values are listed in the "Description"?
It seems redundant in some cases; please review.
Examples of sentences that you may want to cut from NEW Descriptions:
S 6.2.2
Values for this field are listed in the Classification Engine IDs
registry.
S 6.3.2
Values are listed in the flowEndReason registry.
S 6.4.2
Values are listed in the natOriginatingAddressRealm registry.
S 6.5.2
Values for this Information Element are listed in the "NAT Event
Type" registry.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] The following text was included as a note for IANA. We have
removed the text. Please let us know if this is incorrect.
<t>Note to IANA: This change also corrects errors in the pointers
provided for NAT46/NAT64.</t>
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.12.2: We are unable to find an
informationElementDataType registry on iana.org. From discussion with IANA, it
seems "[informationElementDataType] subregistry" was renamed "IPFIX Information
Element Data Types" at some point. Assuming this is true, please consider the
following updates.
Original:
6.12.2. NEW
Description: A description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX
information element.These are taken from the abstract data types
defined in Section 3.1 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102];
see that section for more information on the types described in
the [informationElementDataType] subregistry. These types are
registered in the IANA IPFIX Information Element Data Type
subregistry.
The [informationElementDataType] subregistry is intended to assign
numbers for type names, not to provide a mechanism for adding data
types to the IPFIX Protocol, and as such requires a Standards
Action [RFC8126] to modify.
Additional Information: See the IPFIX Information Element Data Types
registry ([https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-information-element-data-types]).
Perhaps:
6.12.2. NEW
Description: A description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX
information element.These are taken from the abstract data types
defined in Section 3.1 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102];
see that section for more information on the types described in
the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry (previously the
"informationElementDataType" subregistry). These types are
registered in the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types"
registry.
The "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry is intended to assign
numbers for type names, not to provide a mechanism for adding data
types to the IPFIX Protocol; as such, modifications require Standards
Action [RFC8126].
Additional Information: See the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types"
registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/].
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.13.2: We updated the registry title to refer to the
"IPFIX Information Element Semantics" registry, instead of the name of the
registry group ("IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group).
Please confirm this is correct.
Original:
Additional Information: See the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Entities registry ([https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-information-element-semantic]).
Current:
Additional Information: See the "IPFIX Information Element
Semantics" registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.14.1: We are unable to find an
informationElementsUnits registry on iana.org. We believe the
informationElementsUnits subregistry was renamed as "IPFIX Information Element
Units" registry at some point. Please confirm this is correct. Assuming this
is true, please consider the following updates.
Original:
6.14.2. NEW
Description: A description of the units of an IPFIX Information
Element. These correspond to the units implicitly defined in the
Information Element definitions in Section 5 of the IPFIX
Information Model [RFC5102]; see that section for more information
on the types described in the informationElementsUnits
subregistry. These types can take the values in the [IANA IPFIX
Information Element Units] subregistry. The special value 0x00
(none) is used to note that the field is unitless.
Additional Information: See the IPFIX Information Element Units
registry ([IANA IPFIX Information Element Units]).
Perhaps:
6.14.2. NEW
Description: A description of the units of an IPFIX Information
Element. These correspond to the units implicitly defined in the
Information Element definitions in Section 5 of the IPFIX
Information Model [RFC5102]; see that section for more information
on the types described in the "IPFIX Information Element Units" registry
(previously the informationElementsUnits subregistry). These types
can take the values in the "IPFIX Information Element Units" registry.
The special value 0x00 (none) is used to note that the field is unitless.
Additional Information: See the "IPFIX Information Element Units"
registry [https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.14.2 (NEW for informationElementUnits):
FYI, if you accept the suggested text in the previous question, we will
ask IANA to remove the following sentence from the registry; it is not part
of the proposed new text.
Original:
These types can take the values in the [IANA IPFIX Information Element
Units]
subregistry.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3: It is unclear why there are hyphens after
destination and source in the tables. We see the OLD text appears in RFC 6235,
and it does not include hyphens. The hyphens also are not used in RFC 5103.
For example:
destination- Information
(i.e., source- or destination-) Information Element
destination- element
Should the hyphens be removed? For example:
destination Information
(i.e., source or destination) Information Element
destination element
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] We removed the reference to [Forwarding-Status] because IANA
updated their registry with the link. We updated the text to include the
registry title name and the URL to the registry group, based on discussion with
IANA. Currently, [Forwarding-Status] only appears in the OLD text. Please
review.
[Forwarding-Status]
IANA, "Forwarding Status (Value 89)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/
ipfix.xhtml#forwarding-status>.
Section 4.3.2 original:
- Additional Information: See "NetFlow Version 9 Flow-Record Format"
[CCO-NF9FMT]. See the Forwarding Status sub-registries
at [Forwarding-Status].
Current:
Additional Information: See "NetFlow Version 9 Flow-Record Format"
[CCO-NF9FMT]. See the "Forwarding Status (Value 89)" registry at
[https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix].
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor
On Jan 24, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/01/24
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9710
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9710 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-12)
Title : Simple Fixes to the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Entities IANA Registry
Author(s) : M. Boucadair, B. Claise
WG Chair(s) : Henk Birkholz, Joe Clarke
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
