Re: Gen-Art IETF LC review: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt

2008-03-17 Thread Paul Aitken
Joel, Apologies for not responding sooner to your review, as it came right ahead of the -00 and -nn cutoffs. Please see some responses inline. I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see

Re: Gen-Art IETF LC review: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt

2008-03-16 Thread Joel M. Halpern
As I understand the gist of the comments, the document in question was driven by the observation that folks were having trobule achieving interoperability. Trying to fix that is clearly sensible and very much in the IETF and working group interest. Have you looked at things like the SIP

Re: Gen-Art IETF LC review: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt

2008-03-15 Thread Joel M. Halpern
I think I understand your answers, but I have to disagree with several of the concepts. First, to be clear, the idea of a document which spells out the things that various IPFix components need to be able to do in order to work well is a good idea. Firstly, I am sorry you were told to use

Gen-Art IETF LC review: draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-04.txt

2008-02-15 Thread Joel M. Halpern
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: Guidelines