Hi Qin,
(apologies for the delay to reply as I was out of office for the last three
weeks)
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Qin Wu via Datatracker
> Envoyé : lundi 25 décembre 2023 13:51
> À : ops-...@ietf.org
> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-03
>
> Reviewer: Qin Wu
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the
> intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts.
> Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in
> AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG
> chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
> This document Updates IPFIX IANA Registry to fix several issues
> including consistency issues. This update help IANA to better
> structure the content in more consistent way and also help
> automate extraction of values from IANA registry.
>
> This document is well written and I believe it is ready for
> publication.
> However I have a few comments on the latest version v-03:
>
> Major issues:
> None
>
> Minor issues
> 1. Abstract:
> I believe IANA IPFIX registry is associated with all IPFIX
> related RFCs, I am wondering whether update to IANA IPFIX
> registry indicate update to all these IPFIX related RFC as well
> such as RFC7125,RFC7012 and etc?
>
[Med] The document does not update RFC7012 because 7012 says explicitly the
following:
[IANA-IPFIX] is now the normative reference for IPFIX Information
Elements.
For entries that were created by other RFCs (7270, 6759, 8158, 6235, 5477,
5610, 7014, 7015, 7133, 8038, and 5655), I understand that it might seem
cleaner to tag that this I-D updates them. However, the description of many of
these IEs in the IANA registry does not echo exactly what is in the RFC. See,
for example, forwardingStatus or natEvent IEs. Will need to dig further and
check this with Benoît, though.
> 2. Section 4.1.1 said:
> “
> [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new Information
> Element
>to fix the last issue.
> ”
> It is not clear where or which section the procedure is specified
> from the first glance. If my understanding is correct, the
> solution to address the last issue is to define new IEs to
> address all the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IE limitations rather than
> simply specifying the procedure.
[Med] Yes.
>
> To better clarify the relation between this document and [I-
> D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] and understand where the procedure
> is specified, I propose the following change: s/ [I-D.ietf-
> opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new Information Element/
> Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh] specifies a new
> Information Element
[Med] Works for me.
>
> 3. Section 4.1.1 said:
> “
> Note that some implementations may not be able to export all
> observed extension headers in a Flow because of a hardware of
[Med] We meant " hardware or" instead of "hardware of". Fixed.
> software limit (see, e.g., [I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits].
> ”
> What is the reason for some implementation may not be able to
> export all observed extension headers in a Flow? Software limit,
> hardware limit or hardware/software limit, here the proposed
> change: s/a hardware of software limit/a hardware or software
> limit
>
[Med] ACK.
> 4.
> Section 4.2.2 said:
> "
> 4.2.2. Update the Description of the tcpOptions IE
>
>This document requests IANA to update the description of the
>tcpOptions IE in the IANA IPFIX registry [IANA-IPFIX] as
> follows:
>
> "
> Section 3 said:
> "
> The current forwardingStatus entry in [IANA-IPFIX] deviates from
> what
>is provided in [RFC7270].
>
> "
> Section 4 said:
> "
> This document requests IANA to update the description of the
>following entries in [IANA-IPFIX].
>
> "
> You can see some places use "the IANA IPFIX registry [IANA-
> IPFIX]", some places use "IANA-IPFIX", it is not consistent.
>
>
[Med] OK to use consistent wording. Fixed this one and other nits at
https://github.com/boucadair/simple-ipfix-fixes/commit/757e674afa455e18619a44fd8d322c8dfb4bb770.
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou cop
