Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-13: Discuss
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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 7.1. This section is under-specified and contains typos relevant to registration. -- The "IPFIX Information Elements" registry doesn’t have a “Value” field. It is “ElementID” -- The mandatory elements of the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry defined in the registration template of Section 2.1 of RFC7012 are missing – description, datatype, and status. I appreciate that the first two in this list are found in their respective sections. However, there is no guidance to IANA to extract those values as such. -- Per the Reference field value, is a section number permitted? No other current entry in this registry includes a section number. The definition of references from RFC7012 doesn’t seem to account for it either -- “reference - Identifies additional specifications that more precisely define this item or provide additional context for its use.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Robert Sparks for the GENART review. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
