Subject: [IPFIX] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:32:21 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-a9n-07.txt
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 11/12/12
IETF LC End Date: 11/13/12
IESG Telechat date: 11/15/12

Summary: The draft is ready for publication, a few minor issues should
be clarified before approval and publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

1. The definition of an aggregated flow in Section 2 reads: 

> Aggregated Flow:   A Flow, as defined by
      [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis], derived from a set of zero
      or more original Flows within a defined Aggregation Interval.  The
      primary difference between a Flow and an Aggregated Flow in the
      general case is that the time interval (i.e., the two-tuple of
      start and end times) of a Flow is derived from information about
      the timing of the packets comprising the Flow, while the time
      interval of an Aggregated Flow is often externally imposed.  Note
      that an Aggregated Flow is defined in the context of an
      Intermediate Aggregation Process only.  Once an Aggregated Flow is
      exported, it is essentially a Flow as in
      [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis] and can be treated as such.

The way the second phrase is written confuses me. If 'the time interval
of an Aggregated Flow' is <often> externally imposed, this means that
there are exceptions? In which cases? And in these cases what is the
specific difference that makes that Flow to be Aggregated? 

2. In Section 5.3.1 the URL quoted for the IPFIX Information Elements
registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.html does not
exist. 

3. The IANA Note in section 7.2.4 is supposed to be left in the text? If
not, is it necessary to mention someplace else the issue of backwards
compatibility with the IE value in NetFlow version 9? 

4. Same question for the IANA note in Section 10. 

Nits/editorial comments:

1. Section 5.1.1: 

> Each counter for an Original Flow is divided by the
      number of time _units_ the Original Flow covers, to derive a mean
      count rate.

What is the meaning of _units_? 

2. Runing idnits leads to a number of formatting problems that I am sure
will be corrected by the RFC Editor.