Operation of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol on IPFIX Mediators
RFC 7119

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-06)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comments

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-06)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-03 for -08)
No email
send info
1.3:

   The specification in this document applies to the IPFIX protocol
   specifications [RFC7011].

I don't think you mean "applies to". I think it should be "is based on" or "depends on", right?

3:

Change "SHOULD be used" to "can be used" and "SHOULD use" to "can use". I don't even know what SHOULD could mean in this context.

      The Observation Domain ID SHOULD be 0 when no specific Observation
      Domain ID is relevant for the entire IPFIX Message...

This disagrees with Section 6. What's the exception to the SHOULD there? Is there a case where it would be non-zero when no specific Observation Domain ID is relevant? Instead of "SHOULD be", how about "is set to"?

4.3:

   Mediators which generate new Records, as in Section 4.2, SHOULD NOT
   use values of Information Elements they do not understand.  If they
   do pass such values, they MUST NOT pass values of unknown Information
   Elements unless all such values are passed on in the original order
   in which they were received.

I can't imagine an exception to that SHOULD NOT. Seems like this should say, "MUST ignore values".

The "MUST NOT...unless" construction can be confusing. I suggest changing this to:

   If a Mediator passes values of Information Elements it does not
   understand, it MUST pass them in the order in which they were
   originally received.
   
5: "...Intermediate Process SHOULD report..." Change "SHOULD" to "will".

8: Maybe someone can explain to me why compliance statements are useful. Then again, probably best to ignore me on that.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) Recuse