Telechat Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-10-24
Requested 2017-10-02
Authors Diego Lopez, Edward Lopez, Linda Dunbar, John Strassner, Rakesh Kumar
Draft last updated 2017-10-15
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -08 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Daniel Franke (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08-genart-telechat-bryant-2017-10-15
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-10-15


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-10-15
IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-25
IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26

Summary: This is a well written document. There are a couple of things the authors need to look at, but it is ready to be published

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

The authors should consider whether the 2119 boilerplate is really needed as no RFC2119 keywords are used (something they point out to the reader)

       a query-based interface is used by the the I2NSF Management
       System to obatin information, whereas a report-based interface
SB Typo - obtain

9.2.  Registration Categories

SB> I would think that anything in the IPFIX registry was a candidate for such categories, after all IPFIX is designed and used  to monitor flows, often for security reasons.