OK, thanks for the quick response and update. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:16 AM <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > All good suggestions. I went with all of the suggestions, except the refs: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/Donald-Eastlake/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > De : Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> > Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2024 00:08 > À : int-...@ietf.org; int-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes....@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org > Objet : INTDIR Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08 > > > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08.txt>. These comments were written primarily > for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and > shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments > from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last > Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT > Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ . > > > > Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO > OBJECTION. > > This is a straightforward document that fixes lots of inconsistencies and > glitches in the IPFIX IANA Information Element registry. > > I did not find any significant issues or technical problems with this > document. > > The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) > with the document: > > Abstract: "a shortcoming" -> "shortcomings" > > Abstract & Introduction: "calling" -> "citing" or "referencing" > > Section 6.21.2: References to IEEE and ISO/IEC documents, if they are > worth including, should be real references. > > Section 3, 2nd sentence: I think "should be" -> "is" > > Section 4.4.2 & 4.5.2: although DCCP is included in the "e.g." list in > the last sentence of these sections, it is not included in their > Description paragraph and there is no reference to RFC 4340. These > should at least be consistent within the registry entry. > > Section 6.10.2: listing RFC 3022 twice seems odd. > > Section 9: This says to "update" the reference clause of the "IPFIX > Information Elements" registry with "this document". Suggest using > "add" rather than "update" as in > > request IANA to add [this document] to the references for the > "IPFIX Information Elements" registry. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
