Re: [IPFIX] draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05

Hi Andrew,

Many thanks for your review. See in line.

> First a few editorial notes.
>
> Page 6 [top paragraph]
>
> "available at [CISCO], only the layer 7 ones cannot compiled"
> should be
> "available at [CISCO], only the layer 7 ones cannot be compiled "
This following text has been removed in the current temp version. This 
feedback comes from the AD review (Dan Romascanu)

       Note that, while the Application Ids for all applications are
       available at [CISCO  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05#ref-CISCO>], only the layer 7 ones cannot compiled
       from existing well known registries.


>
> Page 12
> "protocol encoding may encoded with 3 bytes. In such a case, "
> should be
> "protocol encoding may be encoded with 3 bytes. In such a case,"
Done.
>
> Page 27 section 6.6
>
>         the reporting application wants to determine whether or the
>         default HTTP port 80 or 8080 was used, it must export the
>         destination port (destinationTransportPort at [IANA-IPFIX])
>         in the corresponding IPFIX record.
>
> should be something like
>
>         the reporting application wants to determine whether or not the
>         default HTTP port 80 or 8080 was used, the
>         destination port (destinationTransportPort at [IANA-IPFIX])
>         must also be exported in the corresponding IPFIX record.
>
That's better. Thanks.
>
> Now a few other notes.
>
> Maybe it is just me, but on page 8 I have no idea what is meant by
>
>         The Selector ID term is in sync with the selectorId
>         Information Element, specified in the PSAMP Protocol
>         [RFC5476].
NEW:
          The Selector ID term is similar to the selectorId
         Information Element, specified in the PSAMP Protocol
         [RFC5476].
>
>
>      7.1.8. p2pTechnology
>      7.1.9. tunnelTechnology
>      7.1.10. encryptedTechnology
>
> specify y, 2, n, 2, u, and 0 in addition to the "yes", "no", and 
> "unassigned" values found at 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml
>
> Are all of these valid values?  If yes should the IANA entries be updated?
Yes, IANA should be updated.
I put this note in the draft, to make sure it's not forgotten.

RFC-EDITOR/IANA-EDITOR: some entries are already present in IPFIX-IANA. 
However, those must be updated with the current content.


Regards, Benoit.
>
> -Andrew

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