Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt
Abdelkader Lahmadi <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:57:45 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============8690696200602529367== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B0CE45B4-3532-40D4-AE6B-3832ADD28E8E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 --Apple-Mail=_B0CE45B4-3532-40D4-AE6B-3832ADD28E8E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3D344708-64BD-4A33-ABFA-5DC032B3F21C" --Apple-Mail=_3D344708-64BD-4A33-ABFA-5DC032B3F21C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear Lars, and NMRG chairs, How we can proceed now with the draft? According to this: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix/= 00/ = <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix= /00/>, It seems that the draft is not in conflict with IETF work. But, it seems that an IETF review and IESG approval are required for = registering the location method tokens according to this: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix/= = <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix= /> I suppose that we can now update the draft with the IANA recommendation = and also the review provided IPFIX expert (Paul). Thank you. Best regards. > 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 and should therefore not be published without IETF = review 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=_3D344708-64BD-4A33-ABFA-5DC032B3F21C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D"">Dear Lars, and NMRG chairs,<div class=3D"">How we can proceed = now with the draft? </div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D"">According to this: <a = href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-locatio= n-ipfix/00/" = class=3D"">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-loca= tion-ipfix/00/</a>, It seems that the draft is not in conflict with IETF = work. </div><div class=3D"">But, it seems that an IETF review and = IESG approval are required for registering the location method tokens = according to this: </div><div class=3D""><a = href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-locatio= n-ipfix/" = class=3D"">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-loca= tion-ipfix/</a></div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D"">I suppose that we can now update the draft with the IANA = recommendation and also the review provided IPFIX expert = (Paul).</div><div class=3D"">Thank you.</div><div class=3D"">Best = regards.<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = class=3D"">On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:28, Eggert, Lars <<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" class=3D"">[email protected]</a>> = wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">On = 2017-3-3, at 12:17, Abdelkader Lahmadi <<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = class=3D"">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">So, we work on a new = text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send you a version.<br = class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">Hang on. Your RG chair should = have explained how the process works.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">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:<br = class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""> = 1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between = this<br class=3D""> document and IETF = work.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""> 2. The IESG has = concluded that this work is related to IETF work done<br class=3D""> = in WG <X>, but this relationship = does not prevent publishing.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""> = 3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially = disrupt<br class=3D""> the IETF work done = in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the<br class=3D""> = document at this time.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D""> 4. The IESG has concluded that this document = violates IETF procedures<br class=3D""> = for <Y> and should therefore not be = published without IETF review<br class=3D""> = and IESG approval.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D""> 5. The IESG has concluded that this document = extends an IETF protocol<br class=3D""> in = a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be<br class=3D"">= published without IETF review and IESG = approval.<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D""><br class=3D"">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.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">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.<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">Lars<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><br class=3D"">Best,<br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">On 03 Mar 2017, at = 12:07, PJ Aitken <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = class=3D"">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">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.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">P.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br= class=3D"">On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:<br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">Hello,<br class=3D"">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.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues = in the document.<br class=3D"">Best regards.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">On 03 Mar = 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = class=3D"">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX = experts?<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">I see a request on November 23rd, = but no reviews. So let me sign up for that.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">First, I took a quick look at the Figures in = Appendix B:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 1: the Field Count = should be 5, not 2.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 2: the size of = the optional Padding field is wrong: the figure shows 9 bits rather than = 8.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. = The "geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined.<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3.<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and = "geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined.<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">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".<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Figure 11:<br class=3D""> The = Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs in Figure = 10 (306, 307, 308).<br class=3D""> 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"<br class=3D""> The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 = seems wrong.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br class=3D"">This document = is not ready for publication. Please post an updated version so I can = check that all the IPFIX details are correct.<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">Thanks,<br class=3D"">P.<br = class=3D""></blockquote></blockquote><br = class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br = class=3D"">IPFIX mailing list<br class=3D""><a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" class=3D"">[email protected]</a><br = class=3D"">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix<br = class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D""></blockquote><br = class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_3D344708-64BD-4A33-ABFA-5DC032B3F21C-- --Apple-Mail=_B0CE45B4-3532-40D4-AE6B-3832ADD28E8E 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJY2/WZAAoJEBX1Mi7AAzI6OAMQAKIBNmpuvtTjPasm/1BBeK0c PIIDpErCCiDWsi3Uf4yVNO8gu7CKHXK2WvULl+S/IY9G9l6ZANg4lGbXRWwicqIJ Y15ot9Ue7cu55ZcNvueEW6nIrH7iSYVMryIWTwh+tLaFG2QIZ74IynvpDTzBKW0e fvSefVTIBkdWmEpNdHAsV72c1RezMj9awZtsw3plSWYKBcm/PwkGW9KhsK10ivS6 pD8TOtkGrCwFeAzihNGD44IeCgRMdvuJWCxFXheHnuWMlawTGBbbqvJO9BsOcFwe QgSTiunY0m1f37xaYQlPn33HVJ+x7vdCtI592N+e3+zYgaUVfiqpHcEQVels+CCE W9kZEUxpIjRmUvnkYsRMxFb5ZWB9cUxrO9uL2DwpSgBsrxq68TtF4XFIvPVnPCjt DXVuHrJEN2ogUWiyFFA3OTH/phnCVzemDhmWyutFw780B7BnPOICDokUcWJ9rrJC SUoWPgY0ewHrZrwuxrMLKfv0si57dJsxvosvWodRYa6zqlUZC+lMzXJKGIFHRgnU 1rYwTavqwtsBbL9HFqI8bIbBpDBQEy5gnlDhgzY2AA0nABXQ7DsXlKA/OcZvw4Aa /bB+g3+d+nZTMC/Fd/3DlNTgw5sgnvNPeSF0oKGLGQQUDAn29G/0l40dhl5DNbhX U9XtqVCjk5V3cNw3hic7 =uHr1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B0CE45B4-3532-40D4-AE6B-3832ADD28E8E-- --===============8690696200602529367== 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 --===============8690696200602529367==--