RE: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-revision-04.txt> (Revision of the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element) to Informational RFC

"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 08 October 2013 09:48 UTC

From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-revision-04.txt> (Revision of the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-revision-04.txt> (Revision of the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOw6qG6GqB/vKmikqKfyysqMhs25nqgdYw
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:47:47 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D0D8EA2@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20131007221317.14968.99718.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131007221317.14968.99718.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list

Hi all,

A small editorial nit: RFC 793, RFC3168 and RFC3540 (which is experimental, BTW) all classify bits 3,4,5 in octets 13 and 14 of the TCP header as "Reserved".

In the information element according to this draft, the corresponding bits are named "Future Use", with the reference "per the definition of the bits in the TCP header [RFC0793]". Strictly speaking, this terminology differs slightly to RFC 793 and the very well-known figure depicting the TCP header.
 
For whatever it is worth, I suggest to better explain the different wording. For instance, instead of ...

      Each of the three future use bits (0x800, 0x400, and 0x200) should
      be exported as observed in the TCP headers of the packets of this
      Flow, as they may be used subsequent to a future update of
      [RFC0793].

... an alternative wording better reflecting the exact header definition in RFC 793 could be:

      Each of the three future use bits (0x800, 0x400, and 0x200) should
      be exported as observed in the TCP headers of the packets of this
      Flow, which are reserved for future use in [RFC0793].

Best regards

Michael
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 12:13 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-revision-
> 04.txt> (Revision of the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element) to
> Informational RFC
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
> consider
> the following document:
> - 'Revision of the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element'
>   <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-revision-04.txt> as
> Informational
> RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-04. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    This document revises the tcpControlBits IPFIX Information Element
> as
>    originally defined in [RFC5102] to reflect changes to the TCP Flags
>    header field since [RFC0793].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-
> revision/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbits-
> revision/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>

RE: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbi… Scharf, Michael (Michael)
Re: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbi… Brian Trammell
Re: Last Call: <draft-trammell-ipfix-tcpcontrolbi… Scharf, Michael (Michael)