Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03
review-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03-intdir-early-touch-2024-01-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-01-08
Requested 2023-12-18
Requested by Joe Clarke
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
I-D last updated 2024-01-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -08 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -03 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Intdir Early review of -03 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dr. Joseph D. Touch
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/5BCJHcWj48AHrbSCXxShUocJpO8
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-01-12
review-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03-intdir-early-touch-2024-01-12-00
This review is performed as part of the INTAREA cross-area review.

There do not appear to be any INTAREA issues in this document.

NOTE: as author of the UDP options on which this document is based, I have some
other concerns noted below, which are the "issues" indicated in the review
result (ready with issues).

There are some misconceptions about UDP options that should be corrected in
this document:

Regarding SAFE options:
-       “Such options can be silently ignored by receivers without affecting
the meaning of the UDP user data” -       Should be “Such options can be
silently ignored by legacy receivers because they do not alter the UDP user
data”

Regarding UNSAFE options:
-       “Such options are not safe to ignore”
-       Should be “Such options are not safe tor legacy receivers to ignore
because they alter the UDP user data”

The document should be more clear that UDP options occur per-packet within a
flow and can be introduced at any time in the flow (unlike TCP).

Sec 4.1 needs to indicate use of a field with 256 possible values; it currently
is defined for only 32 or 64 values.