Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt

--===============1890757848672033135==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_1CE8537D-846F-4ACD-BA24-AE46C5B938AA";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512


--Apple-Mail=_1CE8537D-846F-4ACD-BA24-AE46C5B938AA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Ok. That=E2=80=99s clear. Thank you.
> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:28, Eggert, Lars <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> On 2017-3-3, at 12:17, Abdelkader Lahmadi =
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send =
you a version.
>=20
> Hang on. Your RG chair should have explained how the process works.
>=20
> This IRTF document is now being reviewed (per RFC5742) by the IESG. =
That review is *not* the same review that happens for IETF documents. =
Specifically, the IESG can really only say one of these five things:
>=20
>>   1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
>>      document and IETF work.
>>=20
>>   2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work =
done
>>      in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
>>=20
>>   3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially =
disrupt
>>      the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
>>      document at this time.
>>=20
>>   4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF =
procedures
>>      for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF =
review
>>      and IESG approval.
>>=20
>>   5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF =
protocol
>>      in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
>>      published without IETF review and IESG approval.
>=20
>=20
> At the moment, you are getting individual comments from IPFIX experts =
as part of the IANA review process of the registry actions your document =
wants to make happen. Those are very valuable (thank you!), but before =
you make any changes to the document, please wait until an Area Director =
says that the issues raised are at a significance where they will ask =
for an IESG response other than #1 or #2 above.
>=20
> It sounds like this is likely going to be the case here, but please =
wait until the ADs have caught up on the discussion. And please wait =
with submitting a new revision until that happens as well.
>=20
> Lars
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> Best,
>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> P.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> We haven=E2=80=99t 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in =
the document.
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign =
up for that.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the =
figure shows 9 bits rather than 8.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The =
"geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and =
"geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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 =3D 21".
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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=3D21"
>>>>>  The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated =
version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> P.
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>>=20
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_1CE8537D-846F-4ACD-BA24-AE46C5B938AA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=kpof
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_1CE8537D-846F-4ACD-BA24-AE46C5B938AA--


--===============1890757848672033135==
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

--===============1890757848672033135==--