I read the draft (sorry, couldn't read earlier), and I have one issue left.
In this draft, one of your change is:
- Low level filter definition substituted by simple filter definition based on IPFIX flow attributesThis change is welcome.
However, I think it should be propagated to the "Router State Filtering", which still allows OR and NOT
Regards, Benoit.6.3 Router State Filtering This class of filters select a packet on the basis of router state conditions. The following list gives examples for such conditions. Conditions can be combined with AND, OR or NOT operators. - Ingress interface at which the packet arrives equals a specified value - Egress interface to which the packet is routed equals a specified value - Packet violated Access Control List (ACL) on the router - Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) failed for the packet - Resource Reservation is insufficient for the packet - No route found for the packet - Origin BGP AS [RFC1771] equals a specified value or lies within a given range - Destination BGP AS equals a specified value or lies within a given range