Hi, The revised version addresses all of my Gen-ART review comments.
Thanks! Ben. On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:16 PM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > Ben, > > A new draft version has been posted > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring/ > > Regards, Benoit >> Thanks for the response. Those changes would address all of my comments. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >> On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Paul Aitken <pait...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the review, Ben. >>> >>> As you pointed out, the description in 3.2.18 wrongly specified a delta >>> rather than a total; I've fixed it. >>> >>> I also clarified the third paragraph of the Introduction to say that the >>> existing models don't yet contain enough elements - which is the point of >>> this draft. >>> >>> Regarding section 4 / RFC 5477, the intention is that IANA's IPFIX registry >>> is the ultimate reference. We want to avoid new drafts updating old RFCs. >>> The IPFIX AD is considering how to proceed with that. >>> >>> I'll publish a -07 with the changes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> P. >>> >>>> 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-data-link-layer-monitoring-06 >>>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >>>> Review Date: 2013-22-10 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10 >>>> >>>> Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with one problem >>>> that should be easily fixed. >>>> >>>> Major issues: >>>> >>>> None >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> >>>> 3.2.18: >>>> >>>> Title of the data element suggests a total, but the description sounds >>>> like a delta (i.e change since last report.) >>>> >>>> -- section 4 and subsections >>>> >>>> It looks like this draft updates at least RFC5477. If so, this should be >>>> indicated in the header and in the abstract. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> >>>> -- section , 3rd paragraph: >>>> >>>> Do you mean to say the existing data models do not contain the elements >>>> needed, or that the models do not provide the right foundation for the >>>> needed elements? The wording seems to indicate the latter but I think you >>>> mean the former. >>>> >>>> -- General: >>>> Watch for missing articles. >> . >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
