Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt

Hi Salvatore,

Thank you for addressing the issues raised in my review. 

Regards,

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salvatore D'Antonio [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'IETF IPFIX Working Group'
> Subject: R: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-
> 10.txt
> 
> Dear Dan,
> 
> The new version of the Internet Draft on Flow Selection Techniques has
> been
> published.
> 
> Answers to yours comments inline.
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Per conto di
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Inviato: mercoledì 21 marzo 2012 17:42
> A: IETF IPFIX Working Group
> Oggetto: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-
> 10.txt
> 
> Please find below the AD review of
> draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt.
> 
> The document is in a good enough shape to be sent to IETF LC. Please
> consider my comments together with the other IETF LC comments.
> 
> The comments are divided into T (Technical) and E (Editorial).
> 
> T1. In section 5.1.2:
> 
>    Nevertheless there MAY be the incentive to apply Hash-
>    based Flow Filtering not on the packet level during the Metering
>    Process, for example when the size of the selection range and
>    therefore the sampling probability is dependent on the number of
>    observed flows.
> 
> I think that the usage of a capitalized RFC 2119 MAY is not justified
> here.
> 
> Agreed. MAY has been replaced by may.
> 
> T2. In section 6.1 please provide references for the hash functions
> mentioned as possible functions.
> 
> Done. References for the mentioned hash functions have been added.
> 
> T3. In section 7:
> 
>    In this section we describe Information Elements (IEs) that SHOULD
> be
>    exported by a flow selection process in order to support the
>    interpretation of measurement results from flow measurements where
>    only some flows are selected.
> 
> Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases?
> 
> Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST.
> 
> T4. Also in section 7:
> 
>    All counters SHOULD be exported and reset when a new
>    measurement interval starts.
> 
> Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases? Are
> exporting counters and reset of counters independent, in other words
> can
> some counters be exported but not reset when a new measurement interval
> starts?
> 
> Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST.
> 
> T5. Where are allocated all the IDs marked as TBD in the table in
> Section 7? I do not see a request for allocation in the IANA
> considerations section. What am I missing?
> 
> The IDs that were marked as TBD in the table and not mentioned in the
> IANA
> Considerations section have been removed from the table.
> 
> T6. Even if configuration methods and protocols are out of the scope of
> this document I believe that this statement in the Security
> Considerations section is not sufficient:
> 
>    Nevertheless, a full analysis and assessment of threats for
>    configuration and reporting has to be done if configuration or
>    reporting methods are proposed.
> 
> I think that this document needs at least make a complete assessment of
> the threats and place requirements in the configuration and reporting
> methods to be later defined.
> 
> A new Security Considerations section has been added to the document.
> 
> E1. Three of the missing references prompted up by idnits seem to be
> indeed missing references:
> 
>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 868, but not
>      defined
>      'administered by IANA and are subject to Expert Review
> [RFC5226...'
> 
> Reference to RFC5226 has been added.
> 
>   == Missing Reference: 'I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis' is mentioned on
> line
>      1330, but not defined
>      'according to the procedures set forth in
> [I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815b...'
> 
> Reference to RFC5815 has been added.
> 
>   == Missing Reference: 'GoRe07' is mentioned on line 1372, but not
>      defined
> '[GoRe07]....'
> 
> Reference [GoRe07] has been updated.
> 
> E2. Drop the comma from 'The reason is, that flow-state dependent ...'
> 
> Fixed
> 
> E3. Section 5.2.1:
> 
> Systematic sampling MAY BE applied during the Metering
>    Process.
> 
> BE needs not be capitalized.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> E4. It would be useful to nuumber the Tables in the document like the
> one in Section 6, for later references in other documents.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Salvatore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> -----
> Nessun virus nel messaggio.
> Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
> Versione: 2012.0.1913 / Database dei virus: 2114/4884 -  Data di
> rilascio:
> 21/03/2012
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix