Re: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00

Paul,

You're right, we overlooked the errata. This is the reason why the 
reviews are required ;-)
We'll correct this.

Regards, Benoit.

> Benoit,
>
> That's nice. However, I didn't see _any_ feedback.
>
> Did anyone review it?
>
> So let me do that now:
>
>
>
> Firstly, you haven't addressed _any_ of the 5815 errata. There are 
> five. Please address them in -bis.
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5815&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>
>
>
> Otherwise my comments are only editorial:
>
>
>
> Section 6:
>
>     "{ ipfixSelectorFunctions 1}"
>
>     - Whitespace imbalance around the { }.
>
>
>
> Section 6:
>
>     "The specification of new MIB objects SHOULD follow the structure 
> specified in the next Section"
>
>     - The next section is "6.1 The Selector Functions". Perhaps you 
> mean "8.  MIB Definitions"? So it would be better to state the exact 
> section number.
>
>
>
> Section 6:
>
>     - as a general comment, this would benefit from being broken into 
> a few smaller paragraphs to improve readability.
>
>
>
> Section 7.1:
>
>     "the ENTITY MIB module[RFC4133]"
>
>     - the reference runs into the text. Add space.
>
>
>
> Section 8.2:
>
>     Description
>
>     "subject to Expert Review  RFC 5226"
>
>     - too much space this time! :-)
>
>
>     "RFC [NewRFCNumber]"
>
>     - to make the RFC Editor's job easier, use either "NewRFCNumber" 
> or "THISrfc", not both.
>
>
>
> Section 10:
>
>     Further on, IANA will maintain ...
>
>     "Further on" implies "at some time in the future", which seems 
> vague. I'd just drop those words and state, "IANA will create and 
> maintain ...".
>
>
>
> P.
>
>
> On 19/12/11 09:50, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Apparently, this WGLC is finished.
>> That would be great if we could advance this draft.
>> As a reminder of the different references between the drafts:
>> draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt  <http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-10.txt>status is MISSREF on draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib
>> draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-04.txt  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib/>  status is Waiting for AD Go-Ahead, because of the following normative reference
>>
>>        [I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis]
>>                    Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and G. Muenz,
>>                    "Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information
>>                    Export", draft-dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 (work in
>>                    progress), October 2011.
>>
>>                Note: This reference is actually 
>> draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00
>>
>> Conclusion: draft-ietf-ipfix-rfc5815bis-00 is the bottleneck to 
>> publish 3 RFCs
>>
>> Regards, Benoit.
>>>
>>> Hi all:
>>>
>>> As discussed at last week's meeting, the WG Last Call for this
>>> draft (updated version of the IPFIX MIB) starts now, and will
>>> end on Wednesday, 7 December.  If you have comments on this,
>>> please email them to the IPFIX list.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix