Subject: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 17:39:51 +0200

Hi, 

I performed the AD review of
draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09.txt. This document is in good
shape and I am sending it to IETF Last Call. Please consider the
comments below together with the other IETF Last Call comments. 

Technical Comments are marked T and Editorial comments are marked R. 

T1. Section 4.2.2 - how is probability expressed - as a value between 0
and 1?

T2. Section 4.7: 

   If SCTP is transport protocol, Exporter or
   Collector may be multi-homed SCTP endpoints (see [RFC4960], Section
   6.4) and use more than one IP address.

A capitalized 2119 MAY seems to be appropriate here. 

E1. In Section 4.1: 

   However, indexes SHOULD only be used as identifiers if
   an SNMP agent on the same Monitoring Device enables access to the
   corresponding MIB objects.

s/indexes/indices/
s/MIB objects/MIB tables/ 

Similarly 

      ifIndex SHOULD only be used if an SNMP agent enables
      access to the corresponding MIB object in the ifTable.
      Similarly, a physical entity is either identified by its name
      (entPhysicalName) or the entPhysicalIndex value of the
      corresponding object in the ENTITY-MIB module [RFC4133].
      entPhysicalIndex SHOULD only be used if an SNMP agent enables
      access to the corresponding MIB object in the entPhysicalTable.

Indices are by definition not-accessible, but accessing the tables that
they index should be sufficient as the index can be extracted from the
OIDs of the objects in the table. 

E2. In section 4.3

cacheDiscontinuityTime:  Timestamp of the most recent occasion at
      which dataRecords suffered a discontinuity.  In contrast to
      ipfixMeteringProcessDiscontinuityTime, the time is absolute and
      not relative to sysUpTime.
      Note that this parameter corresponds to
      ipfixMeteringProcessDiscontinuityTime in the IPFIX MIB module
      [RFC5815].

Better say 'functionally corresponds' ...

Thanks and Regards,

Dan