[IPFIX] potential IANA action - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)

RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 05 April 2017 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org>
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 B78EE129490 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gTvI2ngwQHCY for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D9591294A5 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 6000) id 08AC5B80E08; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:46:46 -0700
From: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
To: IANA <iana@iana.org>, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>
Cc: 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, ipfix@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-ID: <20170405194645.GA8548@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org> <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/MqmEszgGpfudwe6gh1clC-x53BE>
Subject: [IPFIX] potential IANA action - Re: [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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:47:16 -0000

Greetings,

Note that we have added IANA to this thread so they are aware of the
discussion taking place.

Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:16:33PM +0100, 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