Subject: [IPFIX] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ipfix-testing-02

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:46 +1300

Hi all:

The IPFIX Testing draft is now ready for WG Last Call, starting
now.  The WGLC will close on Monday, 5 November 07.
Please read the draft, and send you comments/suggestions to this
list.

Cheers, Nevil (IPFIX co-chair)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

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

---

From: Christoph Sommer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:14:01 +0100

> Please read the draft, and send you comments/suggestions to this

Following Paul's invitation, here's my nitpicking:

3.1.1 par1) The first sentence seems to be missing a word somewhere

3.1.1 par2) Maybe add a short note that testing SCTP/TCP connectivity 
may safely be skipped when testing UDP export, as recommended in par 5

3.2.1 par3) Maybe it could be made clearer that this test only mandates 
testing with the 20 defined abstract data types, not all 150+ types 
defined. The Infomodel document uses the terminology "abstract data 
types" so as to reduce confusion with IEs

3.3.3 par1) Why the restriction to export the IEs either (1) 
consecutively or (2) with other IEs in between? There doesn't seem to be 
any other way than either 1 or 2. Should this be read as two separate 
tests that both have to be performed?

3.5.5, 3.5.6) These don't look like stress tests, but more like 
connection tests, so they are a perfect fit for 3.1 (which currently 
only consists of 3.1.1)

3.6.4 d) For a stream-oriented (rather than message-oriented) transport 
protocol, it might be hard to check if there is more data than indicated 
available in a stream. This test might need to be relaxed for TCP 
connections

Regards,

   Christoph

---

From: Christoph Sommer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:14:01 +0100

Regards,

   Christoph