Re: [IPFIX] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13.txt
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Benoit, Authors, Rather than defining a new "flowSelectorAlgorithm", shouldn't the proposed algorithms be added to the existing selectorAlgorithm #304? This only requires removing "packet" from the existing definition (or s/packet/packet and flow/), and allow that a Selection Process can be either a packet selection process or a flow selection process. P. On 24/02/13 15:07, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear authors, > > Looking at the diff, I have the following feedback. > > flowSelectorAlgorithm is a new IE, to be registered by IANA > I see this in section 7.1: > > New assignments for the registry will be administered by > IANA and are subject to Expert Review [RFC5226 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>]. > > This new registry should be in the IANA considerations section. > For an example of the IANA considerations, see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6313#section-11.3 > So the section 7.1 to 7.11 should be in the IANA considerations section. > > Also, in that registry, I see: > +----+------------------------+--------------------------+ > |TBDx| Flow-state Dependent | No agreed Parameters | > | | Intermediate Flow | | > | | Selection Process | | > +----+------------------------+--------------------------+ > This should be > +----+------------------------+--------------------------+ > | 9 | Flow-state Dependent | No agreed Parameters | > | | Intermediate Flow | | > | | Selection Process | | > +----+------------------------+--------------------------+ > On this last point, I realized that I mislead you. Mea culpa. > > I see in section 7.x > Status: Proposed > The status should be "current" > > Really, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6313#section-11.3 is a good example. > > And finally, there are new fields in > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml since you posted you > version. For example "revision". Instruct IANA that they need to put > the value 0. > > These comments can be taken into account part of the WGLC to come. Up > to chairs to decide. > > Regards, Benoit >> A new version (-13) has been submitted for draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13.txt >> >> Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed >> >> >> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech/ >> >> Diff from previous version: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13 >> >> IETF Secretariat. >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix