On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your review. > See in-line. >> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd >> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07 >> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >> Review Date: 2013-11-19 >> IESG Telechat date: 2013-11-21 >> >> Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a standards >> track RFC. However, there is one issue that I unfortunately missed in my >> last call review of version 06 that should be considered prior to >> publication. >> >> Major issues: >> >> None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> There's a normative downref to RFC 2804, which is informational. That seems >> a really odd draft for a normative reference. There may be precedent, as I >> note that RFC 5477, referenced here for security considerations, does the >> same thing. > Actually RFC 5477 uses an informative reference to RFC 2804. Oops sorry, missed that. But it does cite 2804 in the same context (i.e. capture payload octets, subject to [RFC 2804] >> I apologize for bringing this up this late in the process--I missed it in my >> earlier review at last call. >> >> As I understand it the context is that certain data elements can include >> payload octets. This is subject to the security considerations in 5477, >> which basically say don't include too much, because of guidance from 2804. >> But my reading of 2804 does not give specific guidance things like how much >> payload one can capture before it becomes too much. >> >> I think the simplest solution would be to keep the reference to the 5477 >> security considerations, and reiterate that this model is not intended for >> gross capture of payloads, perhaps with an _informative_ reference to 2804. > The informative reference would be in line with RFC 5477. So yes. > Not sure if we need the reiteration. I think a sentence or two would save the reader from having to flip back and forth between docs. But it's not a big deal one way or ahother. Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
