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