Subject: [IPFIX] R: AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt

From: "Salvatore D'Antonio" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:17:13 +0200

Dear Dan,

The new version of the Internet Draft on Flow Selection Techniques has been
published.

Answers to yours comments inline.

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Per conto di
Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Inviato: mercoledì 21 marzo 2012 17:42
A: IETF IPFIX Working Group
Oggetto: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt

Please find below the AD review of
draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-10.txt. 

The document is in a good enough shape to be sent to IETF LC. Please
consider my comments together with the other IETF LC comments. 

The comments are divided into T (Technical) and E (Editorial). 

T1. In section 5.1.2: 

   Nevertheless there MAY be the incentive to apply Hash-
   based Flow Filtering not on the packet level during the Metering
   Process, for example when the size of the selection range and
   therefore the sampling probability is dependent on the number of
   observed flows.

I think that the usage of a capitalized RFC 2119 MAY is not justified
here. 

Agreed. MAY has been replaced by may.

T2. In section 6.1 please provide references for the hash functions
mentioned as possible functions.

Done. References for the mentioned hash functions have been added.

T3. In section 7: 

   In this section we describe Information Elements (IEs) that SHOULD be
   exported by a flow selection process in order to support the
   interpretation of measurement results from flow measurements where
   only some flows are selected.  

Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases? 

Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST.

T4. Also in section 7: 

   All counters SHOULD be exported and reset when a new
   measurement interval starts.

Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? What are the exception cases? Are
exporting counters and reset of counters independent, in other words can
some counters be exported but not reset when a new measurement interval
starts? 

Fixed. SHOULD has been replaced with MUST.

T5. Where are allocated all the IDs marked as TBD in the table in
Section 7? I do not see a request for allocation in the IANA
considerations section. What am I missing?

The IDs that were marked as TBD in the table and not mentioned in the IANA
Considerations section have been removed from the table.  

T6. Even if configuration methods and protocols are out of the scope of
this document I believe that this statement in the Security
Considerations section is not sufficient: 

   Nevertheless, a full analysis and assessment of threats for
   configuration and reporting has to be done if configuration or
   reporting methods are proposed.

I think that this document needs at least make a complete assessment of
the threats and place requirements in the configuration and reporting
methods to be later defined. 

A new Security Considerations section has been added to the document.

E1. Three of the missing references prompted up by idnits seem to be
indeed missing references: 

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 868, but not
     defined
     'administered by IANA and are subject to Expert Review [RFC5226...'

Reference to RFC5226 has been added.

  == Missing Reference: 'I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815bis' is mentioned on line
     1330, but not defined
     'according to the procedures set forth in
[I-D.dkcm-ipfix-rfc5815b...'

Reference to RFC5815 has been added.

  == Missing Reference: 'GoRe07' is mentioned on line 1372, but not
     defined
'[GoRe07]....'

Reference [GoRe07] has been updated. 

E2. Drop the comma from 'The reason is, that flow-state dependent ...'

Fixed

E3. Section 5.2.1:

Systematic sampling MAY BE applied during the Metering
   Process.

BE needs not be capitalized. 

Fixed.

E4. It would be useful to nuumber the Tables in the document like the
one in Section 6, for later references in other documents. 

Done.

Best regards,

Salvatore

Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
-----
Nessun virus nel messaggio.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com
Versione: 2012.0.1913 / Database dei virus: 2114/4884 -  Data di rilascio:
21/03/2012

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:48:08 +0200

Hi Salvatore,

Thank you for addressing the issues raised in my review. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salvatore D'Antonio [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'IETF IPFIX Working Group'
> Subject: R: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-
> 10.txt
> 
> Dear Dan,
>