Subject: [Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-04.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:40:12 -0500

I goofed and deferred rather than approved this, so I'm forwarding to
the list...

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Brian Trammell
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Christian Vogt
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-04.txt

Christian,

We have addressed your comments in the present working copy, slated to
be submitted as -05 after coordination with the document shepherd.
Please see inline for specific comments...

Regards,

Brian

Christian Vogt wrote:

> Comments:
> 
> The document is in a good shape overall.  One thing I liked in
> particular is the "Rationale and History" section, which describes
> possible design alternatives and the reasons for not choosing those.
> 
> For a reader not so familiar with traffic measuring, it would be good
if
> the key technical terms were defined in the introduction, where they
are
> used the first time.  E.g., one can quickly assume what the "metering
> and collection processes" do, and why these ought to be separate
> processes.  But it would be great if the document itself would clarify
> this, possibly including citations to existing documents.

The introduction was using terminology defined in the IPFIX Protocol
document (and incorporated by normative reference by the Terminology
section of this document)... instead, we've edited the intro to use more
generic terminology, which we believe makes it easier to read. As you
say, Collecting Process is reasonably easy to deduce the meaning of, but
"collector" is even simpler.

> Another thing that I think could be improved is that the figures on
> pages 9 and on are neither referenced nor described in the text.  The
> text would be nicer to read if it would directly refer to the figures
> and explain matters based on the figures.

Done.

> Also, the abbreviations used in the figures should be explained.  It
is
> currently left to the reader to guess that "MP" is a metering process,
> and that an "Nx" is a node whoose traffic is being measured.

The figures have been redrawn for clarity; this removes all the
abbreviations except "MP", which is explicitly defined in the section
introduction.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art