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

PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paitken@Brocade.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 7341612941D for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 qk3WSzTmoB7a for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:7a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4E1712940E for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000542.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v35I1sAw023230; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:16:51 -0700
Received: from brmwp-exmb12.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 29jbkyrp95-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:16:51 -0700
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) by BRMWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:16:48 -0600
Received: from [10.252.49.3] (10.252.49.3) by EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:16:42 +0200
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, <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>
CC: <ipfix@ietf.org>
From: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>
Message-ID: <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:16:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.252.49.3]
X-ClientProxiedBy: hq1wp-excas14.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.103) To EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-05_14:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1704050149
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/OkfZGOqwvNPzcXKrwpqlspn74Qc>
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 18:17:09 -0000

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