Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-11
review-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-11-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2016-11-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-11-29
Requested 2016-10-13
Authors Senthil Sivakumar , Reinaldo Penno
I-D last updated 2016-11-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2016-11-28
review-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-11-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2016-11-28-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more
information, please see the FAQ at
<‚Äčhttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-11
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2016-02-12
IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-01

Summary:

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.

Major: 0
Minor: 5
Nits:  1

(1) Minor:

A sentence in Section 3 says: "This document focuses exclusively on the
specification of IPFIX IEs." But this statement appears to be false. A
large part of the document (Section 5.6) specifies Templates. It appears
to be an important aspect of the document that goes beyond specifying
just IEs. So the statement should be expanded.

(2) Minor:

Section 5.2 starts with "The templates could contain a subset of the
Information Elements(IEs) shown in Table 1 depending upon the event
being logged."

This is not a normative statement. It isn't clear what is normative
regarding the use and content of templates. If I understand RFC7011, a
NAT device can use any number of templates, and those templates can
reference any defined IE. Is *this* document intended to *restrict* the
form and number of templates used for logging NAT devices? Or is it
simply suggesting some templates that may be modified as desired to fit
the needs of a particular NAT device device?

These templates do not have any Information Element that uniquely
identifies to the IPFIX collector that this template is being used. So
how does the collector know that the particular event is intended to
follow the definitions in this draft, rather than simply some
proprietary template? Absent that, how do normative statements of what
must be in the template mean anything?

(3) Minor:

Section 5.6 says: "Depending on the implementation and configuration
various IEs specified can be included or ignored."

What is the normative intent of this statement? Is it defining what is
meant by the "Mandatory" field in the tables? (I.e., that in the
templates it sends the NAT device MUST include fields with Mandatory=Yes
but MAY omit fields with Mandatory=No.) This should be revised to make
the normative behavior clearer.

(4) Minor:

Within the IANA Considerations, section 8.1 deals with Information
Elements, with one subsection for each new IE being defined. Some of
these (8.1.4 natQuotaExceededEvent, 8.1.5 netThresholdEvent, 8.1.6
netEvent) each require a new IANA subregistry to be defined. They do
this rather informally within the body of the corresponding subsection.
Perhaps IANA will figure this out, but there is opportunity for
misunderstanding. It would be better if there were separate subsection
of section 8 for each of these registry creation actions. E.g. 8.2 NAT
Quota Exceeded Event Type, 8.3 NAT Threshhold Event Type, 8.4 NAT Event
Type.

(5) Minor:

Section 9 appears to be normative, since it uses 2119 language. But it
appears at a position in the document (after Acknowledgements and IANA
Considerations, before Security Considerations), where I would normally
not expect to find normative language.

Perhaps this is intended to be more of an appendix. If so, then the
normative language should be removed, and it ought to be formatted as an
appendix.

If it is intended to be normative, then I suggest that it be moved ahead
of the Acknowledgements.

(6) Nit:

Running IDNits returns a number of issues, mostly regarding references.