Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
( Ron Bonica ) Yes
( David Kessens ) Yes
( Dan Romascanu ) Yes
Jari Arkko (was Discuss) No Objection
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.
( Ross Callon ) No Objection
( Brian Carpenter ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( Lisa Dusseault ) No Objection
( Bill Fenner ) No Objection
( Ted Hardie ) No Objection
( Russ Housley ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( Cullen Jennings ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( Chris Newman ) No Objection
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: OLD: Elements in extensions of the IPFIX information model. Thi schema NEW: Elements in extensions of the IPFIX information model. This schema
( Mark Townsley ) No Objection
( Magnus Westerlund ) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.