Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements
RFC 5610

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-20 for -)
No email
send info
Section 1., paragraph 3:
>    This document proposes a general mechanism to encode the full set of
  s/proposes/defines/

Section 3., paragraph 2:
>    privateEnterprseNumber Information Element
  Nit: s/privateEnterprseNumber/privateEnterpriseNumber/

Section 3.9., paragraph 7:
>    | informationElementID          | The Information Element           |
  Nit: s/informationElementID/informationElementId/

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-20 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 20 April 2009 provides some
  editorial suggestions.

  Section 1.1, last paragraph. There is an unfinished sentence:

   It draws data type definitions and data type semantics
   definitions from the Information Model; the encodings of these data
   types

  Section 3, last paragraph. There is  an unfinished sentence:

   This Information Element supports
   references only to IANA-defined Information Elements; the
   privateEnterprseNumber Information Element

  A nit revealed by idnits: RFC 2434 has been obsoleted by RFC 5226.

  The draft contains a number of tables. It would be nice to add a
  table number and a caption under each of them, so that the text (or
  text from other drafts and RFC) can safely refer to "Table nn in
  RFC xxxx". This is similar to what the draft does with Figures.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-20 for -)
No email
send info
Each element's status in this draft is currently "Proposed" - a value rfc 5102 doesn't allow. I'm guessing the intent on approval is for this to become "current"? If so, an RFC/IANA note might be nice so they don't have to guess too.

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection