Hi Authors, Thank you for working on this document, This is my review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-06 draft. They are roughly divided between COMMENT and NIT. The COMMENTs should be resolved before this document is sent for IETF LC for publication as a Draft Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1, paragraph 2 > When OPSAWG was considering [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update] which > updates [RFC7125], the WG realized that some other parts of the IANA > IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) registry [IANA-IPFIX] were not up- > to-date. Indeed, since its initial creation in 2007, some IPFIX > Information Elements (IEs) are no longer adequately specified (while > they were at some point in time in the past). This document intends > to update the IANA registry and bring some consistency among the > entries of the registry. For a specification to "no longer adequately" specify an IE, the underlying specification for IPFIX must have changed. If that is so, can you cite what changed? If not, I would just remove the statement. It is not serving any purpose in this specification. Section 1, paragraph 1 > As discussed with IANA during the publication process of [RFC9487], > the "Additional Information" entry in [IANA-IPFIX] should contain a > link to an existing registry, when applicable, as opposed to having: What happens to the existing registries? Does Section 6 take care of all of them? Should the link in existing registries not specified in Section 6, also move to Additional Information? Section 3, paragraph 3 Since Sections 4-7 are really for the IANA Consideration section, why not move them there? Section 4.1.2, paragraph 0 > - Description: This Information Element describes the forwarding > status of the flow and any attached reasons. > IPFIX reduced-size encoding is used as required. I know that you explain what reduced-size encoding in the other IPFIX documents, but it will be worth repeating it here or refer to that definition from here. Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term "he"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their" * Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common", "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic", "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted", "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Uncited references: [RFC_Errata_1739] and [RFC_Errata_1738]. Reference [RFC2482] to RFC2482, which was obsoleted by RFC6082 (this may be on purpose). Reference [RFC5102] to RFC5102, which was obsoleted by RFC7012 (this may be on purpose). Reference [RFC1631] to RFC1631, which was obsoleted by RFC3022 (this may be on purpose). Document references draft-ietf-opsawg-RFC7125-update, but that has been published as RFC9565. Reference [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update] to RFC7125, which was obsoleted by RFC9565 (this may be on purpose). Reference [RFC7125] to RFC7125, which was obsoleted by RFC9565 (this may be on purpose). Reference [RFC4646] to RFC4646, which was obsoleted by RFC5646 (this may be on purpose). "Abstract", paragraph 3 > ions and Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list (opsawg@iet > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This phrase is duplicated. You should probably use "Working Group" only once. Section 6.2.2, paragraph 1 > NAT event. This IE identifies the type of a NAT event. Examples of NAT events > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.3.1, paragraph 1 > NAT event. This IE identifies the type of a NAT event. Examples of NAT events > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.10.1, paragraph 5 > description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX information element. These > ^^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "an" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.10.2, paragraph 5 > description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX information element.These a > ^^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "an" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.20.2, paragraph 1 > nformation Element identifies the type of a NAT Quota Exceeded event. Values > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.20.2, paragraph 2 > nformation Element identifies the type of a NAT Quota Exceeded event. Values > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.21.1, paragraph 2 > Information Element identifies a type of a NAT Threshold event. Values for t > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.21.2, paragraph 2 > Information Element identifies a type of a NAT Threshold event. Values for t > ^^^^^^^^^ If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".). Section 6.23.1, paragraph 4 > | | | table below, and section Section 5.1. | | 2 | PmA | Pe > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Possible typo: you repeated a word. Section 6.24.2, paragraph 1 > SHOULD have this flag set, and vice-versa.) | +--------+----------+--------- > ^^^^^^^^^^ The expression "vice versa" is spelled without hyphens. Section 7.2.1, paragraph 1 > SHOULD have this flag set, and vice-versa.) | +--------+----------+--------- > ^^^^^^^^^^ The expression "vice versa" is spelled without hyphens. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
