Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:41:57 +0100

Hi Meral,

Thanks for your feedback.
See 
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08.txt 

See in-line.
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq  .
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07
>
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
>
> Review Date: 2013-10-25
>
> IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-25
>
> IESG Telechat date: NA
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC but I do 
> have some comments.
>
> Major issues:
>
> none
>
> Minor issues:
>
> none
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> -[Page 3], Section 1,
>
> "The specifications in the IPFIX protocol
>
>    [RFC7011] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX Mediator
>
>    receiving, aggregating, correlating, anonymizing, etc... Flow Records
>
>    from one or more Exporters.
>
> "
>
> not clear after the "etc...".   Maybe it should be "etc., Flow Records 
> from one or more Exporters." ?
>
Done.
>
> -[Page 3], Section 1,
>
> "An overview of the technical problem is covered in section
>
>    6 of [RFC5982]: loss of original Exporter information, loss of base
>
>    time information, transport sessions management, loss of Options
>
>    Template Information, Template Id management, considerations for
>
>    network considerations for aggregation.
>
> "
>
> Last part of the sentence uses "considerations" twice. Please revise 
> for better clarity.
>
Improved.
>
> Also in html format, "section 6 of [RFC5982]" points to section 6 of 
> the draft and not the RFC.
>
Actually, it points to the RFC5982
>
> -[Page 8], Section 3, Figure 1:
>
> Caption should say "IPFIX Message Header Format"
>
We have not followed that convention.
See

            Figure 2: Intermediate Flow Selection Process example

                Figure 3: Template Mapping example: templates

So only the terms from the terminology section are capitalized.
We propose to wait for the RFC editor guidance.
>
> -[Page 12], "Figure 3 shows the Template Mapping for the system shown 
> in Figure 2."
>
> Where is Figure 3? Is the text above Figure 3 caption on page 13 
> considered to be the figure? If so it is a bit confusing.
>
> This comment applies to other figures as well. Suggestion, use ascii 
> art to draw boxes around the text.
>
Done
>
> General comment about figures: some of them span across pages, it 
> would be good to revise those.
>
We have added a note for the RFC editor
>
> -[Page 18], just before Section 5.1, it would be good to introduce 
> sections 5.1 and 5.2.
>
> -[Page 19], just before Section 6.1, it would be good to introduce it.
>
> -[Page 23], just before Section 10.3, it would be good to introduce 
> sections 10.3 and 10.4.
>
Added for 5.1 and 5.2
6.1 is present already.
For 10.3, it's done in section 10

Thanks again for your feedback.

Regards, Brian and Benoit