Med, super fast reply as usual ;-) The PR addresses indeed my concerns.
Have a nice end of the week -éric From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Date: Friday, 5 July 2024 at 10:23 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fi...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fi...@ietf.org>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, thomas.g...@swisscom.com <thomas.g...@swisscom.com> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10: (with COMMENT) Hi Éric, Thanks for the review. Candidate changes to address your review can be tracked here: 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/Eric-Vyncke-iesg-review/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.txt Please see also inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Envoyé : vendredi 5 juillet 2024 09:04 > À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fi...@ietf.org; opsawg- > cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com; > thomas.g...@swisscom.com > Objet : Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > fixes-10: (with COMMENT) > > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free > to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > fixes-10 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies > would be > appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. > > Special thanks to Thomas Graf for the shepherd's detailed write- > up including > the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ## Abstract Section 1 > > Suggest using the full name of the IANA registry "IP Flow > Information Export > (IPFIX) Entities" (i.e., with "Entities" at the end). > [Med] OK. > ## Section 1 > > Be more assertive in a PS: s/This document intends to update > /This document > updates / [Med] Agree. > > ## Section 4.3.2 > > Is it the "first" or "least-significant" byte in `A structure is > currently > associated with the first byte.`? [Med] LSB is more precise. Per reducing encoding, the other bits set to zero will always lead to returning the forwarding status as usigned8. Fixed. > > Can only regret using the IPv4 terminology in 2024 as in `Bad > TTL` rather than > "Bad Hop-Limit/TTL" (would also suggest using "expired" as I do > not know what a > "bad" hop-limit is). I understand that this would require > changing > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%252> > Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipfix%2Fipfix.xhtml%23forwarding- > status&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C3f7baf40e4 > 144bdbce6e08dc9cc099bd%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0 > %7C638557598230291537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA > iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdat > a=stsaUcSQ329IP2gBVgeb2WHV9jPCXwc65BqEfFDq63g%3D&reserved=0 but > why > not doing it in the same "fix I-D" ? [Med] I'm not comfortable with changing that part that was created for a specific implem "Cisco-Specific ..." > > I would assume that Forwarding-Status should be a normative > reference. [Med] We don't need that as the registry is authoritative per the following from RFC 7012: [IANA-IPFIX] is now the normative reference for IPFIX Information Elements. > > ## Section 6.10.2 > > RFC 3022 does not contain the word "NAT44" so it cannot be a > reference for > NAT44 ;-) You may want to use "See [RFC3022] for the definition > of NAT > (commonly named NAT44)" or similar. [Med] Deal. > > BTW, thanks for fixing NAT66 into NPTv6 ;-) > > ## Sections 6.23.2 and 6.24.2 > > Suggest removing the reference to RFC 791 & 3234 as they are > neither related to > NAT nor used in the IANA registry. [Med] 3234 references was motivated IMO by this specific section rfc3234#section-2.1 about NATs but a definition for NAT is also supplied (3022). I see that RFC uses "NAT middlebox" in the description of one IE (natInstanceID), but not for these ones. Note sure why 791 was cited here, though. These two seem useless. > > # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) > > ## Section 5 > > I am just puzzled by the order of the rows in table 1, it looks > neither logical > nor alphabetical. > [Med] The order is based on the ElementID (increasing order). Updated the table to make that explicit. Hope this is better. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
