Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-06
Requested revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-04-26
Requested 2024-04-13
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Benoît Claise
I-D last updated 2024-05-05
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Martin Duke (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -08 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -03 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Early review of -03 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-05-05
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-08.txt>. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors
and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any
other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the
INT Directorate, see .

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO

This is a straightforward document that fixes lots of inconsistencies and
glitches in the IPFIX IANA Information Element registry.

I did not find any significant issues or technical problems with this

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text
improvements) with the document:

Abstract: "a shortcoming" -> "shortcomings"

Abstract & Introduction: "calling" -> "citing" or "referencing"

Section 6.21.2: References to IEEE and ISO/IEC documents, if they are
worth including, should be real references.

Section 3, 2nd sentence: I think "should be" -> "is"

Section 4.4.2 & 4.5.2: although DCCP is included in the "e.g." list in
the last sentence of these sections, it is not included in their
Description paragraph and there is no reference to RFC 4340. These
should at least be consistent within the registry entry.

Section 6.10.2: listing RFC 3022 twice seems odd.

Section 9: This says to "update" the reference clause of the "IPFIX
Information Elements" registry with "this document". Suggest using
"add" rather than "update" as in

     request IANA to add [this document] to the references for the
     "IPFIX Information Elements" registry.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA