Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07
review-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-10-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-10-25
Requested 2013-10-18
Draft last updated 2013-10-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -07 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-10-28
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2013-10-28

Review
review-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-10-28






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

  .




 




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




 




Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07




Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour




Review Date: 2013-10-25




IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-25




IESG Telechat date: NA




 




 




 




Summary:




This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC but I do have some comments.




 




 




Major issues:




none




 




Minor issues:




none




 




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




-[Page 3], Section 1, 




"The specifications in the IPFIX protocol




   [RFC7011] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX Mediator




   receiving, aggregating, correlating, anonymizing, etc... Flow Records




   from one or more Exporters.




"




not clear after the "etc...".   Maybe it should be "etc., Flow Records from one or more Exporters." ?




 




 




-[Page 3], Section 1, 




"An overview of the technical problem is covered in section




   6 of [RFC5982]: loss of original Exporter information, loss of base




   time information, transport sessions management, loss of Options




   Template Information, Template Id management, considerations for




   network considerations for aggregation.




 




"




Last part of the sentence uses "considerations" twice. Please revise for better clarity.




Also in html format, "section 6 of [RFC5982]" points to section 6 of the draft and not the RFC.




 




-[Page 8], Section 3, Figure 1:




Caption should say "IPFIX Message Header Format"




 




-[Page 12], "Figure 3 shows the Template Mapping for the system shown in Figure 2."




Where is Figure 3? Is the text above Figure 3 caption on page 13 considered to be the figure? If so it is a bit confusing.




This comment applies to other figures as well. Suggestion, use ascii art to draw boxes around the text.




General comment about figures: some of them span across pages, it would be good to revise those.




 




-[Page 18], just before Section 5.1, it would be good to introduce sections 5.1 and 5.2.




-[Page 19], just before Section 6.1, it would be good to introduce it.




-[Page 23], just before Section 10.3, it would be good to introduce sections 10.3 and 10.4.




 




 




 




 




Best Regards,




Meral




---




Meral Shirazipour




Ericsson Research




www.ericsson.com