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

["Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 [[e-mail]] on behalf of PJ Aitken [[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:37 AM
>> To: Stewart Bryant; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix