Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt
PJ Aitken <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:26:23 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============6802976141056767734== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EB37E06F49CFE2F45FDCA17B" --------------EB37E06F49CFE2F45FDCA17B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Great, thanks. P. On 03/03/17 11:17, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote: > Ok, more clear now. > So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send you a version. > > Best, >> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Abdelkader, it was me who did the IE-doctors review. That's only concerned with the IANA request; it's not an IPFIX review of the document. >> >> P. >> >> >> On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote: >>> Hello, >>> We havent really get a "proper review" of the document by IPFIX experts. Recently, we had a discussion with IANA and they asked IE-doctors to make a review, since that we received some points to be fixed regarding the proposed IE. I can forward to you the other comments from IE-doctors that we have received by IANA. >>> >>> Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in the document. >>> Best regards. >>> >>> >>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts? >>>> >>>> I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign up for that. >>>> >>>> >>>> First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B: >>>> >>>> Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2. >>>> >>>> Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the figure shows 9 bits rather than 8. >>>> >>>> Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The "geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined. >>>> >>>> Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3. >>>> >>>> Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and "geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined. >>>> >>>> Figure 9: The sizes of the "CivicValue" data fields are not shown correctly. eg, "Inria Nancy-Grand Est" is depicted in 6 octets when it should contain 21. Therefore the Figure is misleading and difficult to understand; it is not a good example. Please redraw the figure correctly. Please mark the variable-lengths eg "vlen = 21". >>>> >>>> Figure 11: >>>> The Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs in Figure 10 (306, 307, 308). >>>> Again, the "Inria Nancy-Grand Grand Est" field is depicted in 6 octets rather than the requisite 27. Without the repeated "Grand", the 21 would be correct. Please write "vlen=21" >>>> The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> P. >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix > > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --------------EB37E06F49CFE2F45FDCA17B Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Great, thanks.<br> <br> P.<br> <br> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/03/17 11:17, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Ok, more clear now. So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send you a version. Best, </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: Abdelkader, it was me who did the IE-doctors review. That's only concerned with the IANA request; it's not an IPFIX review of the document. P. On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hello, We havent really get a "proper review" of the document by IPFIX experts. Recently, we had a discussion with IANA and they asked IE-doctors to make a review, since that we received some points to be fixed regarding the proposed IE. I can forward to you the other comments from IE-doctors that we have received by IANA. Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in the document. Best regards. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote: Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts? I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign up for that. First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B: Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2. Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the figure shows 9 bits rather than 8. Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The "geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined. Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3. Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and "geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined. Figure 9: The sizes of the "CivicValue" data fields are not shown correctly. eg, "Inria Nancy-Grand Est" is depicted in 6 octets when it should contain 21. Therefore the Figure is misleading and difficult to understand; it is not a good example. Please redraw the figure correctly. Please mark the variable-lengths eg "vlen = 21". Figure 11: The Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs in Figure 10 (306, 307, 308). Again, the "Inria Nancy-Grand Grand Est" field is depicted in 6 octets rather than the requisite 27. Without the repeated "Grand", the 21 would be correct. Please write "vlen=21" The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong. This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct. Thanks, P. </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <br> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <br> <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html> --------------EB37E06F49CFE2F45FDCA17B-- --===============6802976141056767734== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix --===============6802976141056767734==--