Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 18 April 2017 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7DA12EC4D for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2dXc6uvOYpO5 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from capri.iway.ch (capri.iway.ch [212.25.24.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4B212EABC for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E72340EBA; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:02:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/7408.15741); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [195.176.111.18] (account ietf@trammell.ch HELO public-docking-cx-1617.ethz.ch) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 14859754; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:01:57 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E19A3EF6-02C4-4ECD-B6CF-17CCA49DFE3D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <2c308d8c-a6b8-69da-2385-34cdaae46f1d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:01:56 +0200
Cc: Andrew Feren <andrew.feren@plixer.com>, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>, "quittek@netlab.nec.de" <quittek@netlab.nec.de>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "paitken@cisco.com" <paitken@cisco.com>, "jemeyer@paypal.com" <jemeyer@paypal.com>, "joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, Nevil Brownlee <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, "quittek@neclab.eu" <quittek@neclab.eu>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <8C5CFB60-F33B-4346-94EF-B8D5F33E6A96@trammell.ch>
References: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org> <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com> <481e0cd9-530a-d9ab-d8f3-e02f99f65821@gmail.com> <c8b7025e-923c-b5cb-dc85-4a5eda2c70eb@brocade.com> <8E7542283B89BB4DB672EB49CEE5AAB7BEC809A1@PLXRDC01.plxr.local> <2c308d8c-a6b8-69da-2385-34cdaae46f1d@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/AY0HCDcczfMlKZW1JAoaLaRFpuU>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipfix/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:02:11 -0000

Hi, all,

You can't raise an erratum against the registry, but 7013 provides for interoperable revisions to Information Elements to correct errors (section 5.2 criterion 2 holds).

Cheers,

Brian


> On 06 Apr 2017, at 15:45, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> It depends on what IANA think, but it's only about an hour to write and the reviews will all go though on the nod.
> 
> Of course as an AD Benoit may just be able to direct that that this obvious correction happens.
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> On 06/04/2017 14:23, Andrew Feren wrote:
>> What about an errata on 5102 with a note that that the definitions have moved to the registry?  Seems like an odd end run, but if it solves the problem...
>> 
>> -Andrew
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: IPFIX [ipfix-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of PJ Aitken [pjaitken@brocade.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:37 AM
>> To: Stewart Bryant; quittek@netlab.nec.de; stbryant@cisco.com; bclaise@cisco.com; paitken@cisco.com; jemeyer@paypal.com; joelja@bogus.com; n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz; quittek@neclab.eu
>> Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
>> 
>> That would be possible, though it seems like a lot of effort for the
>> addition of two clarifying words, "least significant" ?
>> 
>> P.
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/04/17 10:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> If necessary you could write a one page RFC asking IANA to add a note
>>> to the registry.
>>> 
>>> Stewart
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 05/04/2017 19:16, PJ Aitken wrote:
>>>> I should point out that although RFC 5102 has been obsoleted by RFC
>>>> 7012, 7012 doesn't actually contain any Information Element
>>>> definitions; it simply points to IANA's IPFIX registry as the
>>>> normative reference for Element definitions.
>>>> 
>>>> So the issue doesn't arise in 7012, and I suspect it's not possible
>>>> to raise an errata against the registry.
>>>> 
>>>> P.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30/03/17 13:45, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5102,
>>>>> "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export".
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5102-26eid-3D4984%26d%3dDwIC-g%26c%3dIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg%26r%3dl3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU%26m%3dlbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo%26s%3dqFdcGTGJe09BgcdUjB6EszW7hMzekalZnfj8wx5JlNw%26e%3d&c=E,1,POSFjbIcmfzya-gNUP5rX4D4UfQQg4AwYC59vms0nF1wQWLNUVnaAiF5ob6Uae9OGK7KJmApL2_YmgpwUhW4gYwEcADORoaJSQoTSL3CL1vf&typo=1
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Type: Technical
>>>>> Reported by: Paul Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>;
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section: 5.2.10, appA
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original Text
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Each bit represents an Information Element in the Data Record
>>>>> with the n-th bit
>>>>> representing the n-th Information Element.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Corrected Text
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> Each bit represents an Information Element in the Data Record,
>>>>> with the n-th least significant bit
>>>>> representing the n-th Information Element.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Notes
>>>>> -----
>>>>> A misunderstand arose as to whether bits were assigned in host order
>>>>> or network order - so clarify that the bits are assigned from the
>>>>> least significant to the most significant, ie right-to-left rather
>>>>> than left-to-right.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moreover, this clarification applies to IANA's IPFIX registry.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NB RFC 8038 re-uses this definition for mibIndexIndicator.
>>>>> Consistency between the definitions is desirable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Instructions:
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC5102 (draft-ietf-ipfix-info-15)
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Title               : Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
>>>>> Publication Date    : January 2008
>>>>> Author(s)           : J. Quittek, S. Bryant, B. Claise, P. Aitken,
>>>>> J. Meyer
>>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>>> Source              : IP Flow Information Export
>>>>> Area                : Operations and Management
>>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix%26d%3dDwIC-g%26c%3dIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg%26r%3dl3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU%26m%3dlbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo%26s%3d2CAUPZ9aGFiHyUVUtn2cZFp3fcwj4DUALHp38x4XnC8%26e%3d&c=E,1,pcYrfKgiAK5NJHIqb30BLQrXBHi8Lo8-mgP6pHj3ho1uiEqr0t_tIoUPPm2W5esu67hb-exkoIxDnLvptn6Fk1XN_eXkMZbhZslQnOteFYgZtZG7_ZC0ruA,&typo=1
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix&c=E,1,usIqknq8V3E9Vc_Br3gQ45teOaNlF3LfzLHNrQfB4rcp1FD80k14Pk3JVl_c5gVkoOA2yrwp8SRtE_kUr0YLtIlWtEs33OppFfZ7Xp_6PNt-XItuFw,,&typo=1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix