Skip to main content

Operation of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol on IPFIX Mediators
draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-10

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)

Recuse

(Benoît Claise)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -07) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-06) Unknown
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comments
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-03 for -08) Unknown
1.3:

   The specification in this document applies to the IPFIX protocol
   specifications [RFC7011].

I don't think you mean "applies to". I think it should be "is based on" or "depends on", right?

3:

Change "SHOULD be used" to "can be used" and "SHOULD use" to "can use". I don't even know what SHOULD could mean in this context.

      The Observation Domain ID SHOULD be 0 when no specific Observation
      Domain ID is relevant for the entire IPFIX Message...

This disagrees with Section 6. What's the exception to the SHOULD there? Is there a case where it would be non-zero when no specific Observation Domain ID is relevant? Instead of "SHOULD be", how about "is set to"?

4.3:

   Mediators which generate new Records, as in Section 4.2, SHOULD NOT
   use values of Information Elements they do not understand.  If they
   do pass such values, they MUST NOT pass values of unknown Information
   Elements unless all such values are passed on in the original order
   in which they were received.

I can't imagine an exception to that SHOULD NOT. Seems like this should say, "MUST ignore values".

The "MUST NOT...unless" construction can be confusing. I suggest changing this to:

   If a Mediator passes values of Information Elements it does not
   understand, it MUST pass them in the order in which they were
   originally received.
   
5: "...Intermediate Process SHOULD report..." Change "SHOULD" to "will".

8: Maybe someone can explain to me why compliance statements are useful. Then again, probably best to ignore me on that.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-06) Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse (for -08) Unknown