Subject: [IPFIX] Exporting Type Information for IPFIX IE: feedback

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:35:10 +0100

Elisa, Brian, Lutz, Tanja,

I reviewed this draft. I think it looks good
Here is some feedback anyway.

- Terminology: you should mentioned that the terms from RFC5101 are 
capitalized
- I would put the section 3.1 to 3.8 about the new IE after the section 
3.9 "information element type options template".
The reason is that, when reading through the IEs definitions, I was 
trying to deduce the specifications
- informationElementRangeBegin and informationElementRangeEnd.
I like your definitions, but they don't match with the IE name. What 
about renaming to informationElementValueRangeLow and 
informationElementValueRangeHigh
- you have sometimes specifications within the IE description, even with 
SHOULD. We shouldn't have specifications in the description.
  Example: informationElementRangeBegin
- IANA in informationElementSemantics. It's fine to mention that there 
is an IANA registry, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention: 
requires Standard Action.
This part should be in the IANA consideration sections.
- This draft might benefit from two new definitions: information From [email-masked]  Sun Mar  9 18:37:38 2008
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:35:10 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IPFIX] Exporting Type Information for IPFIX IE: feedback
Sender: [email-masked]

Elisa, Brian, Lutz, Tanja,

I reviewed this draft. I think it looks good
Here is some feedback anyway.

- Terminology: you should mentioned that the terms from RFC5101 are 
capitalized
- I would put the section 3.1 to 3.8 about the new IE after the section 
3.9 "information element type options template".
The reason is that, when reading through the IEs definitions, I was 
trying to deduce the specifications
- informationElementRangeBegin and informationElementRangeEnd.
I like your definitions, but they don't match with the IE name. What 
about renaming to informationElementValueRangeLow and 
informationElementValueRangeHigh
- you have sometimes specifications within the IE description, even with 
SHOULD. We shouldn't have specifications in the description.
  Example: informationElementRangeBegin
- IANA in informationElementSemantics. It's fine to mention that there 
is an IANA registry, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention: 
requires Standard Action.
This part should be in the IANA consideration sections.
- This draft might benefit from two new definitions: information element 
type options template and information element type
- privateEnterpriseNumber: "A private enterprise number used to scope an 
informationElementID, as would appear in an IPFIX Template Record."
I don't understand the second part of the sentence.
Why do you say: "If the Enterprise ID bit of the corresponding 
Information Element is cleared (has the value 0), this IE should be set 
to 0."
"The presence of a non-zero value in this IE implies that the Enterprise 
ID bit of the corresponding Information Element is set (has the value 
1)." isn't it the logic reverse? If the Enterprise ID bit is set to 1, 
the corresponding Information Element MAY/SHOULD/MUST ...".
- I don't think you want to write the first part of the sentence. Think 
about UDP

   Information Element type records SHOULD NOT be
   duplicated within a Transport Session, but once an Information
   Element type record has been exported for a given Information Element
   within a given Transport Session, all subsequent type records for
   that Information Element MUST be identical. 
NEW 
   Once an Information
   Element type record has been exported for a given Information Element
   within a given Transport Session, all subsequent type records for
   that Information Element MUST be identical. 

- "The template SHOULD contain the following Information Elements"

Maybe worth a couple of compulsory IEs, such as informationElementID, 
privateEnterpriseNumber, informationElementDataType, and 
informationElementSemantics
- In the template figure, I would put [scope] under informationElementID 
and privateEnterpriseNumber, to be inline with the file draft

A few editorial changes
- this draft -> this document
- enterprise specific information element is spelled differently at 
different locations
- information element -> Information Element  (several occurences)
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

element 
type options template and information element type
- privateEnterpriseNumber: "A private enterprise number used to scope an 
informationElementID, as would appear in an IPFIX Template Record."
I don't understand the second part of the sentence.
Why do you say: "If the Enterprise ID bit of the corresponding 
Information Element is cleared (has the value 0), this IE should be set 
to 0."
"The presence of a non-zero value in this IE implies that the Enterprise 
ID bit of the corresponding Information Element is set (has the value 
1)." isn't it the logic reverse? If the Enterprise ID bit is set to 1, 
the corresponding Information Element MAY/SHOULD/MUST ...".
- I don't think you want to write the first part of the sentence. Think 
about UDP

   Information Element type records SHOULD NOT be
   duplicated within a Transport Session, but once an Information
   Element type record has been exported for a given Information Element
   within a given Transport Session, all subsequent type records for
   that Information Element MUST be identical. 
NEW 
   Once an Information
   Element type record has been exported for a given Information Element
   within a given Transport Session, all subsequent type records for
   that Information Element MUST be identical. 

- "The template SHOULD contain the following Information Elements"

Maybe worth a couple of compulsory IEs, such as informationElementID, 
privateEnterpriseNumber, informationElementDataType, and 
informationElementSemantics
- In the template figure, I would put [scope] under informationElementID 
and privateEnterpriseNumber, to be inline with the file draft

A few editorial changes
- this draft -> this document
- enterprise specific information element is spelled differently at 
different locations
- information element -> Information Element  (several occurences)
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix