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

Andrew Feren <andrew.feren@plixer.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.feren@plixer.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 177F7129501 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jZjxeVvxChQg for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.plixer.com (mx1.plixer.com [64.140.243.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731DB1294FE for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PLXRDC01.plxr.local ([::1]) by PLXRDC01.plxr.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:23:19 -0400
From: Andrew Feren <andrew.feren@plixer.com>
To: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "quittek@netlab.nec.de" <quittek@netlab.nec.de>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "bclaise@cisco.com" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "paitken@cisco.com" <paitken@cisco.com>, "jemeyer@paypal.com" <jemeyer@paypal.com>, "joelja@bogus.com" <joelja@bogus.com>, "n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz" <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, "quittek@neclab.eu" <quittek@neclab.eu>
CC: "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
Thread-Index: AQHSqVOjrO3TKoJg50SVG4vGPkynTaG3YemAgAD+/4CAAAJCAP//+WAb
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:23:19 +0000
Message-ID: <8E7542283B89BB4DB672EB49CEE5AAB7BEC809A1@PLXRDC01.plxr.local>
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>
In-Reply-To: <c8b7025e-923c-b5cb-dc85-4a5eda2c70eb@brocade.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.140.243.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/NhoLfspQ2XKZVTSsxMNWvNIe5ug>
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 13:23:43 -0000

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