Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
RFC 5102
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Recuse
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes
(David Kessens; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
> 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.
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection