Hi all: I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-04 "Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions. This documents updates both RFC 5810 and RFC 7121 semantics to achieve that end goal." This draft is 'ready with nits' (which are easily fixed by the authors). - - - - 1. Is the specification complete? Can multiple interoperable implementations be built based on the specification? This draft specifies two straightforward extensions to ForCES, . the ability to request an arbitrary range of table rows . an extended set of error codes to provide more detail for failing requests It also clarifies describes in detail how large tables should be retrieved using a sequence of GET requests The draft is short, and explains the above clearly. 2. Is the proposed specification deployable? If not, how could it be improved? These are extensions to ForCES, existing implementations should continue to operate as usual. 3. Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues that could affect usability for large scale operation? No. 4. Are there any backward compatibility issues? No. 5. Do you anticipate any manageability issues with the specification? No 6. Does the specification introduce new potential security risks or avenues for fraud? No. Some comments: Figure 1 doesn't show clearly that each row is 32 bits wide, though that is made clear in the text following the Figure. Consider adding bit numbers at the top. The section on TABLERANGE-TLV has a 64-bit hex constant for the last entry in the table, but that's for a 32-bit field! Appendix A only gives the new version of the FEPO. It would be better to have an introductory sentence saying that "This version updates the earlier one given in RFC 7121." A few typos: p6 s/Path flag of/The Path flag of/ s/implies the beggining/implies the begining/ s/contain the row(s)/contains the row(s)/ s2.3.1 New Codes unfinished sentence: 'common to both old' ... perhaps 'old and extended Result Values' ? s3.2.3 Extended Result TLV s/now have 32 bit/now have a 32 bit/ s/old 8 bit/old 8 bit value/ s/Utf-8/UTF-8/ s/string../string./ Cheers, Nevil Co-chair, IPFIX and EMAN WGs -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand