Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-
review-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-genart-lc-even-2012-07-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-07-17
Requested 2012-07-05
Authors Brian Trammell, Benoît Claise
Draft last updated 2012-07-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Roni Even
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Roni Even
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Yoav Nir
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-genart-lc-even-2012-07-15
Review completed: 2012-07-15

Review
review-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-genart-lc-even-2012-07-15

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

 

Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–7–15

IETF LC End Date: 2012–7–17

IESG Telechat date:

 

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

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.

       

The registration procedure should mention NetFlow V9 expert review for 0-128. I think that in the IANA section it will be good to suggest update also for the Registration procedure and Reference of the IPFIX Information Elements registry.

2.

       

Section 5.1 should reference RFC5226 and say if it clarifies RFC5226 or adds some procedure.

3.

       

In section 5.2 is there a need for a specification to explain the change. The text is not clear about it.

4.

       

Section 5.3 say “Names of deprecated or obsolete Information Elements MUST NOT be reused.” What about the elementID can it be re-used?

 

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

1.

       

Section 4.2 third paragraph “applications can to use reduced-size” should be “applications can use reduced-size”

2.

       

Section 4.8 first paragraph “enumerates those which Information Elements” should be “enumerates those Information Elements”

3.

       

In section 10.1 “these are described in and Section 10.3” I did not understand the “in and”, I assume something is missing here.