Subject: [I2nsf] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:59:53 -0800

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading this right after draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-21, I'm
struck that there are many things defined as possible filter criteria (e.g. TCP
header fields) but are not worth recording as statistics. Does this all fall
under the "policy hit counter?"

---

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:40:12 +0900

Hi Martin,
Here is the revised draft reflecting your comments:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-15

I attach the revision letter to explain how the revision
is done by Patrick and me for your comments.

[Review by Martin Duke and Response by Authors] starts
from page 24 in the revision letter.

Thanks for your valuable comments and help.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:00 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:07:50 -0800

Thank you, that looks great!