Re: [IPFIX] review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07

Hi, Paul,

Good comments, all, thanks; will address along with area review and other IESG processing comments. 

Cheers,

Brian

On 1 Nov 2012, at 18:08, Paul Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:

> Having missed the WGLC announcement and just seen the IESG LC announcement, I thought I should quickly review the 04->05->06->07 diffs.
> 
> As usual I have just a few minor points which I hope are helpful.
> 
> Sorry things are a bit jumbled up this time, which is due to reviewing the three versions in order rather than the larger 04->07 all at once.
> 
> 
> Section 3, 5th paragraph:
> 
>     I think the paragraph means to say that conversion between Flows is possible.
>     However, I mis-read that the IEs can be converted within a flow - so there's potential ambiguity here:
> 
>    While much of the discussion in this document, and all of the
>    examples, apply to the common case that the Original Flows to be
>    aggregated are all of the same underlying type (i.e., are represented
>    with identical Templates or compatible Templates containing a core
>    set Information Elements which can be freely converted to one
>    another), and
> 
> Also, there's a missing "of":
> 
>    with identical Templates or compatible Templates containing a core
>    set of Information Elements
> 
> 
> Section 8:
> 
>     Why was "pt" used for "protocolIdentifier"? Surely "pr" would have been more obvious choice and less easily confused with "Port".
> 
> 
> Under Figure 19: remove ";" :
>    After applying the interval distribution step to the source data in
>    Figure 10,; the Partially Aggregated flows are shown in Figure 20.
> 
> 
> Under Figure 24: remove space before the comma:
>    information from the Original Flows in Figure 10 , and as such is not
> 
> 
> Section 6.2:
>    Note that when aggregating flows from multiple
>    Metering Processes with different active timeouts, the delay is
>    determined by the maximum active timeout.
> 
>     -  it's not so much "determined by" as "proportional to", because an allowance should also be made for other delays.
> 
> 
> Section 3, paragraph 4:
> 
>     s/anonymising/anonymizing/ for consistency with the 8 other uses in the doc.
> 
> 
> Section 8:
>    The data records given as input to the examples in this section are
>    shown below;
> 
>     say "in Figure 10", else the figure isn't referenced until after Figure 12.
> 
> 
> P.
>

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