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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 4DCDB1241FC for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hyLZXFGfn5tD for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x243.google.com (mail-wr0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7F391243FE for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x243.google.com with SMTP id u18so1544163wrc.1 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3m3EYqwwagW5daCaJXtpRIkGE/rtka/taq9wOUnDwqk=; b=de2MDnrfT4ofVj+rza1tj0AaUSE6pWSsPm+VEacvD1TKr5LmNs8n7mH8XXUrOZN7vH L7b+0bD/uko45dxd443q9pKfuh4VBJb5/j261t3JGHzH4YF9hqgvdzHmMa0acibbHY48 7S/2Ki/NfHsZlUpnL1YQukw6lG7ROf9d3f6L+6mgZdCxRuSEA26Uf2ctXb6ONisS/8+N T9m5TOJ/KJ0Vmwx/I/RHr83SOdqtNpb4ObqT2gGmsWgA8GWKWMkA/s+HQQWCAmZV0pny Gz8lF0wJTIBIGCiacSBhu7rlwoj4PS6dzDM3v7FXR8fTYDD8KYlj48nNkT3Q2ZJ90Tnd csUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3m3EYqwwagW5daCaJXtpRIkGE/rtka/taq9wOUnDwqk=; b=AFIvCvKOmAubwGycztQ17VWr0SKhNy4KDZhNwHiVUv6C6aBy6pc2uWUyr/yH/rqnFc 8LZ8RnsYZ/G8VSQ1WTMQhBVqSXmM8jgP3pcVxjsOMmdWrgTJzwbeDBkMd4eAB50Z5fbM hgL1UkgkbjKVU4OKMUysBXTqJKR2gH2iam9ecWtcqM9ZOn4qp7DT/VPzGeC/GndLUuS9 xTMvl6z9vCxrM+HhPJo9mHK9C6NDhnrJ8jjUmBs6AafyulProcwxUVBkIBoOh5H9pPSu 30CQZnYznx6Lrot4qi0SOE4uYov2PZop4Sc7Slbf+sZmkFeHrHBBzaVZ1X+qaTHfSjS+ v1Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3SDU2AItztm8d/6O3qj+C8OVyCLE1IzneS/2xd21cBdr5OnadX 1dG5vOAg1QRaaA==
X-Received: by 10.28.217.142 with SMTP id q136mr22899454wmg.48.1491470956321; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u63sm1667030wmu.22.2017.04.06.02.29.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>, 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
References: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org> <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com>
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481e0cd9-530a-d9ab-d8f3-e02f99f65821@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:29:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/KaEx5-KFHB6uYsAY3RskevgM-AE>
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:29:20 -0000

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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5102&eid=4984
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix