Re: [IPFIX] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-13.txt
Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 24/02/2013 17:40, Paul Aitken wrote: > 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. That would be nice, but I guess we would have to update all the PSAMP RFCs. In particular, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5477#section-8.2.1 So in practice, not sure that will happen. Regards, Benoit > > 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