Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-

Request Review of draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-04-17
Requested 2012-03-22
Authors Benoît Claise , Paul Aitken, Nir Ben-Dvora
I-D last updated 2012-04-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Roni Even
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Roni Even
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Roni Even
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Completed 2012-04-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may



Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–4–7

IETF LC End Date: 2012–4–17

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational



Major issues:

Minor issues:


In sections 2, 4.1 (PANA-L7), 5, 6.5 the draft points to information in Cisco
web page. I could not locate and information that is referenced. The link is to
the main Cisco web page. For example in section 6.5 it lists the selectorID as
10000, where is this value located?


For the definition of Classification engine IDs in section 4.1 for the non
standard values like PANA-L3, PANA-L4, PANA-L7, PANA-L2, is there a requirement
that the selector IDs will be publically available?


In section 4.2 “However, an IANA L3 protocol encoding may encoded with 3
bytes.” When is it encoded in 3 bytes, also figure 2 is not reflecting this
example, I expected to see a 32 bit value according to the text and not a
general figure. (small nit in the above sentence “may be” instead of “may”.


In section 7 I noticed that ”p2pTechnology, tunnelTechnology, and
encryptedTechnology” are already assigned in the IANA IPFIX Information
elements so why assign them again as new?


In section 7 I noticed that you request that the  applicationDescription,
applicationId, applicationName, classificationEngineId will receive elementid
values from the range 0-127. My reading from section 4.2 is this is not
required, maybe add text that will explain this request.


In the security section are

 there additional considerations when the applicationid information is coming
 from a proprietary classification engine about authentication of the
 information source?

Nits/editorial comments:


In section 4.1 last sentence what is the meaning of “by theses specifications”
, I did not understand the context.


In section 6.6 “

to determine whether or the default HTTP port” delete the “or”


In section 6.6 “The Classification Engine ID is 2” should be “3”.