Subject: Re: [IPFIX] announcing draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-02

From: Andrew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:11:13 +0000

Hi Brian and Elisa

The document looks good.  One grumble, I think you could do with a few
more commas :)  Also, there is a mistake in your example.

Finally, I think you should put the XML for your new IE in there
somewhere, probably in an appendix.

Cheers

Andrew

======================================================================
End of section 3:
                                         This had the disadvantage of
   conflicting with the presently defined semantics for these counters,
   and was as such abandoned.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think, "and, as such, was abandoned" reads better.

======================================================================
Top of page 11:
                                                   ... They therefore
   cannot by definition be associated with a single direction or
   endpoint of the flow.

You need some commas:
                                                   ... They therefore
   cannot, by definition, be associated with a single direction or
   endpoint of the flow.

or perhaps:
                                                   ... Therefore, by
   definition, they cannot be associated with a single direction or
   endpoint of the flow.

======================================================================
There's a couple of cut-and-paste errors in your example:
   o  The number of packets of the Flow: octetTotalCount in the IPFIX
      Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], with a length of 4 octets

   o  The reverse number of packets of the Flow: octetTotalCount in the
      IPFIX Information Model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-info], with a length of 4
      octets, and the enterprise bit set to 1.  The following PEN is the
      Reverse PEN (not yet assigned, indicated with TBA in the draft)

Rather than octetTotalCount you want packetTotalCount.
======================================================================

Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
> 
> A new revision (-02) of the biflow draft is now available. This revision
> expands on the available direction assignment strategies and provides
> guidelines on their applicability; adds discussion on bidirectional IEs
> in enterprise specific space; adds a new biflowDirection information
> element that can be used to note direction selection criteria; and
> incorporates other comments from San Diego and since.
> 
> The -01 revision of the draft, posted last week, had a few mis-numbered
> sections (sections 6 and 7 in -01 are properly numbered 5.2 and 5.3 in
> -02, with subsequent sections having been renumbered accordingly). As
> this could have led to confusion in discussing the draft, we decided to
> correct and resubmit.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Andrew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:11:13 +0000

Hi Brian and Elisa

Cheers

Andrew

You need some commas:
                                                   ... They therefore

or perhaps:
                                                   ... Therefore, by

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:37:16 -0500

Andrew,

Thanks for the review, and the comments! All look good, and have been
incorporated into the current working revision of the document.

Cheers,

Brian

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:37:16 -0500

Andrew,

Cheers,

Brian