Sign in
Version 5.13.0, 2015-03-25
Report a bug

Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
RFC 5102

No Objection
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

Jari Arkko

Comment (2006-11-16 for -15)

>   9, AUT      51       Authentication Header
>  10, ENC      50       Encrypted security payload

"AH" and "ESP" would have been easier-to-remember
mnemonics. Same for ROU / RH.

[Chris Newman]

Comment (2007-04-19 for -)

I reviewed this briefly, rather than in detail, to get this done sooner.  I'm
largely trusting prior reviews by Ted and Scott.

When the RFC editor note is applied to the main document, please also apply it
to the appendix for consistency.

Also one nit in Appendix B, paragraph 2:

   Elements in extensions of the IPFIX information model.  Thi schema
   Elements in extensions of the IPFIX information model.  This schema

[Magnus Westerlund]

Comment (2006-11-14 for -15)

Section 5.5:

I am missing a meter on UDP checksum usage. As the UDP checksum may be turned
of by setting it to 0 one can meter on this.