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

--===============9179009817480890900==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D738C2D-8127-47C1-92E7-BA62D08ED4DD";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512

--Apple-Mail=_6D738C2D-8127-47C1-92E7-BA62D08ED4DD
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hi,

On 2017-3-29, at 12:57, Abdelkader Lahmadi <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> Dear Lars, and NMRG chairs,

Allison has taken over as chair, so this is a question for her. However:

> How we can proceed now with the draft?
>=20
> According to this: =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix/=
00/, It seems that the draft is not in conflict with IETF work.

The IESG has not yet concluded its review - that link at the moment =
captures the current status of individual ADs positions. They will send =
a formal response when their review has concluded.

> 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/=


All IANA actions coming from the IETF require IESG approval. Typically, =
that approval is implicit in a review that results in a document being =
publishable.

> I suppose that we can now update the draft with the IANA =
recommendation and also the review provided IPFIX expert (Paul).

I'd wait until the IESG review has concluded.

Lars




> 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
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_6D738C2D-8127-47C1-92E7-BA62D08ED4DD
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Ct6/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_6D738C2D-8127-47C1-92E7-BA62D08ED4DD--


--===============9179009817480890900==
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

--===============9179009817480890900==--