Requirements for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-16
Yes
(Bert Wijnen)
No Objection
(Margaret Cullen)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2004-01-07)
Unknown
The -13 revision has addressed the concerns on anonymization, congestion avoidance and retransmission I expressed about earlier drafts, all of which were passed on to the ipfix mailing list.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ned Freed Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-03)
Unknown
Nit: No IPR boilerplate Security considerations section here is IMO very nice.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-07)
Unknown
I find the structure of section 4.2 very awkward. There has to be a better way to say the same thing. Also, there are no MAY requirements in the list that follows the introductory sentence. In section 4.6, the document acknowledges that some header fields may not be available if encryption is used. I think the placement of this text would be better in the introduction to section 4. the resulting section would say: unless the use of security protocol that provides encryption prevents the gathering of of the following information, then the solution MUST .... In section 10.1: s/spy out/spy on/
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-07)
Unknown
4.2(4) doesn't parse.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-08)
Unknown
Minor comment: I think it would be useful to move section 4.6 up, so that the note relating to encrypted header fields occurs before the requirements which cannot be met for encrypted header fields