Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08
review-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2013-12-04-00

Thanks for the review, Meral, and for taking the issues into account, Benoit. I
have placed a no-obj recommendation for this document in this week's IESG
telechat.

Jari

On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise at cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Meral,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
> See

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08.txt

> See in-line.
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

  .
>>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07 >>
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour >> Review Date: 2013-10-25 >> IETF LC End Date:
2013-10-25 >> IESG Telechat date: NA >> >> >> >> Summary: >> This draft is
almost ready to be published as Standard RFC but I do have some comments. >> >>
>> Major issues: >> none >> >> Minor issues: >> none >> >> >> Nits/editorial
comments: >> >> -[Page 3], Section 1, >> "The specifications in the IPFIX
protocol >>    [RFC7011] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX
Mediator >>    receiving, aggregating, correlating, anonymizing, etc... Flow
Records >>    from one or more Exporters. >> " >> not clear after the "etc...".
  Maybe it should be "etc., Flow Records from one or more Exporters." ? > Done.
>> >> >> -[Page 3], Section 1, >> "An overview of the technical problem is
covered in section >>    6 of [RFC5982]: loss of original Exporter information,
loss of base >>    time information, transport sessions management, loss of
Options >>    Template Information, Template Id management, considerations for
>>    network considerations for aggregation. >> >> " >> Last part of the
sentence uses "considerations" twice. Please revise for better clarity. >
Improved. >> Also in html format, "section 6 of [RFC5982]" points to section 6
of the draft and not the RFC. > Actually, it points to the RFC5982 >> >> -[Page
8], Section 3, Figure 1: >> Caption should say "IPFIX Message Header Format" >
We have not followed that convention. > See >            Figure 2: Intermediate
Flow Selection Process example >                Figure 3: Template Mapping
example: templates > So only the terms from the terminology section are
capitalized. > We propose to wait for the RFC editor guidance. >> >> -[Page
12], "Figure 3 shows the Template Mapping for the system shown in Figure 2." >>
Where is Figure 3? Is the text above Figure 3 caption on page 13 considered to
be the figure? If so it is a bit confusing. >> This comment applies to other
figures as well. Suggestion, use ascii art to draw boxes around the text. >
Done >> General comment about figures: some of them span across pages, it would
be good to revise those. > We have added a note for the RFC editor >> -[Page
18], just before Section 5.1, it would be good to introduce sections 5.1 and
5.2. >> -[Page 19], just before Section 6.1, it would be good to introduce it.
>> -[Page 23], just before Section 10.3, it would be good to introduce sections
10.3 and 10.4. > Added for 5.1 and 5.2 > 6.1 is present already. > For 10.3,
it's done in section 10 > > Thanks again for your feedback. > > Regards, Brian
and Benoit > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing
list > Gen-art at ietf.org >

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art