Hi Meral,
Thanks for your feedback.
See
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08.txt
See in-line.
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-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2013-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-25
IESG Telechat date: NA
Summary:
This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC but I do
have some comments.
Major issues:
none
Minor issues:
none
Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 3], Section 1,
"The specifications in the IPFIX protocol
[RFC7011] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX Mediator
receiving, aggregating, correlating, anonymizing, etc... Flow Records
from one or more Exporters.
"
not clear after the "etc...". Maybe it should be "etc., Flow Records
from one or more Exporters." ?
Done.
-[Page 3], Section 1,
"An overview of the technical problem is covered in section
6 of [RFC5982]: loss of original Exporter information, loss of base
time information, transport sessions management, loss of Options
Template Information, Template Id management, considerations for
network considerations for aggregation.
"
Last part of the sentence uses "considerations" twice. Please revise
for better clarity.
Improved.
Also in html format, "section 6 of [RFC5982]" points to section 6 of
the draft and not the RFC.
Actually, it points to the RFC5982
-[Page 8], Section 3, Figure 1:
Caption should say "IPFIX Message Header Format"
We have not followed that convention.
See
Figure 2: Intermediate Flow Selection Process example
Figure 3: Template Mapping example: templates
So only the terms from the terminology section are capitalized.
We propose to wait for the RFC editor guidance.
-[Page 12], "Figure 3 shows the Template Mapping for the system shown
in Figure 2."
Where is Figure 3? Is the text above Figure 3 caption on page 13
considered to be the figure? If so it is a bit confusing.
This comment applies to other figures as well. Suggestion, use ascii
art to draw boxes around the text.
Done
General comment about figures: some of them span across pages, it
would be good to revise those.
We have added a note for the RFC editor
-[Page 18], just before Section 5.1, it would be good to introduce
sections 5.1 and 5.2.
-[Page 19], just before Section 6.1, it would be good to introduce it.
-[Page 23], just before Section 10.3, it would be good to introduce
sections 10.3 and 10.4.
Added for 5.1 and 5.2
6.1 is present already.
For 10.3, it's done in section 10
Thanks again for your feedback.
Regards, Brian and Benoit
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
