Thanks, Med. Looks good to me. //Zahed
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:34 AM <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Roman, Zahed > > The changes to address Roman's DISCUSS are not public: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-14. > > > The version also addresses the comment from Zahed. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > Envoyé : mercredi 10 juillet 2024 08:13 > > À : 'Roman Danyliw' <r...@cert.org>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ip...@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com > > Objet : RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg- > > udp-ipfix-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > The changes to address your review can be seen at: > > https://github.com/boucadair/udp-ipfix/pull/12/files > > > > Please see more inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Envoyé : > > mardi 9 > > > juillet 2024 19:46 À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc : > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ip...@ietf.org; opsawg- > > cha...@ietf.org; > > > opsawg@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com; > > thomas.g...@swisscom.com > > > Objet : Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp- > > > ipfix-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > > 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.) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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" > > > > [Med] Thank you for catching the typos. Made this change: > > > > OLD: |Value |Name | Reference | > > NEW: |ElementID|Name |Specification| > > > > > > > > -- 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. > > > > [Med] These are more about the content of the registry, not the > > content of a registration request. A template is provided here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7013#section-9.1, fwiw. > > Please note that status does not need to appear in the > > registration request for a new IE. All newly registered IEs will > > have "current" as status per 7012. I confirm that IANA had that > > well set for the candidate actions they shared with us for this > > spec. > > > > 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. > > > > [Med] IANA had no issue to digest the current instructions, but I > > agree that it is better to be explicit. I added these notes for > > completeness: > > > > NEW: > > > Note to IANA: > > > : The "Specification" column points to the section with the > > required information to register each IE. > > > > > > Note to the RFC Editor: > > > : Please remove the IANA note once IANA actions are > > implemented. > > > > > > > > -- 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." > > > > [Med] The sections won't appear in the registry; these are only > > meant to provide a pointer to IANA where to find the required > > information to implement the actions. The exact reference that > > will appear in the registry is provided in the specific sections. > > I guess this is fixed with the changes above. > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > COMMENT: > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > > > Thank you to Robert Sparks for the GENART review. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > 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
