Thanks for the review, Meral, and for taking the issues into account, Benoit. I have placed a no-obj recommendation for this document in this week's IESG telechat. Jari On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Meral, > > Thanks for your feedback. > See http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-08.txt > See in-line. >> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07 >> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour >> Review Date: 2013-10-25 >> IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-25 >> IESG Telechat date: NA >> >> >> >> Summary: >> This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC but I do have some comments. >> >> >> Major issues: >> none >> >> Minor issues: >> none >> >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> -[Page 3], Section 1, >> "The specifications in the IPFIX protocol >> [RFC7011] have not been defined in the context of an IPFIX Mediator >> receiving, aggregating, correlating, anonymizing, etc... Flow Records >> from one or more Exporters. >> " >> not clear after the "etc...". Maybe it should be "etc., Flow Records from one or more Exporters." ? > Done. >> >> >> -[Page 3], Section 1, >> "An overview of the technical problem is covered in section >> 6 of [RFC5982]: loss of original Exporter information, loss of base >> time information, transport sessions management, loss of Options >> Template Information, Template Id management, considerations for >> network considerations for aggregation. >> >> " >> Last part of the sentence uses "considerations" twice. Please revise for better clarity. > Improved. >> Also in html format, "section 6 of [RFC5982]" points to section 6 of the draft and not the RFC. > Actually, it points to the RFC5982 >> >> -[Page 8], Section 3, Figure 1: >> Caption should say "IPFIX Message Header Format" > We have not followed that convention. > See > Figure 2: Intermediate Flow Selection Process example > Figure 3: Template Mapping example: templates > So only the terms from the terminology section are capitalized. > We propose to wait for the RFC editor guidance. >> >> -[Page 12], "Figure 3 shows the Template Mapping for the system shown in Figure 2." >> Where is Figure 3? Is the text above Figure 3 caption on page 13 considered to be the figure? If so it is a bit confusing. >> This comment applies to other figures as well. Suggestion, use ascii art to draw boxes around the text. > Done >> General comment about figures: some of them span across pages, it would be good to revise those. > We have added a note for the RFC editor >> -[Page 18], just before Section 5.1, it would be good to introduce sections 5.1 and 5.2. >> -[Page 19], just before Section 6.1, it would be good to introduce it. >> -[Page 23], just before Section 10.3, it would be good to introduce sections 10.3 and 10.4. > Added for 5.1 and 5.2 > 6.1 is present already. > For 10.3, it's done in section 10 > > Thanks again for your feedback. > > Regards, Brian and Benoit > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art