Hi Sujay,
Thank you for the review.
On 31.10.09 08:27 "sujay gupta" <sujay.ietf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> A few comments.
> 1) I have a slight problem overall with the language structuring
> especially from section 1 to 4. It could be made simple.
Would you have concrete suggestions? This would be helpful.
Thanks,
Juergen
> 2) IPFIX mediation as a service or device? is intermixed, can we
> differentiate that? also can we call the different type of mediators
> as services?
> 3) Is there any line of thought of having the mediation device
> incorporate record compression to reduce b/w?(
> draft-muenz-ipfix-compression) as another service, or deal with
> compressed data from the original exporter?
> BR,
> -Sujay
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Juergen Quittek <Quittek at nw.neclab.eu>
> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At our session in Stockholm we agreed to start the 2nd working group
>> last call on the mediation problem state as soon as a new version
>> of it would be available. The new version is
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-problem-state
>> ment-06.txt
>>
>> The call starts today and will last until Friday October 30.
>>
>> Please read the draft!
>> Please send your comments to this mailing list!
>> Please also send a message if you are fine with the draft as it is!
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> IPFIX at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>>
>>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature