Re: [IPFIX] comments on draft-scholz-ipfix-rtp-msg-00

Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mar 28, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:

Based on the feedback from the IPFIX WG itself in one of the
meetings the IE allocation and the methodology were separated and moved
to another WG.

I think the WG may want to reconsider that.  It creates two documents which overlap significantly, except the IANA allocation one is less text with fewer explicit details, while the methodology has the details.  So an implementor would basically need to read both docs anyway, and creating two documents to shepherd/publish is just extra overhead for the submitter, IESG and RFC editor.  What's the real benefit?

This is the diff of the files:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02.txt;url2=draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt>

Seems kinda silly, no?
Just my 2 cents, looking at it from the outside.

-hadriel

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.