Re: [IPFIX] Data type for srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength in IPFIX Entities registry

hi Ahmed,

Yep, this is an erratum. 

Not an SR expert but as this is a “significant bit counter” I suspect unsigned8 is the appropriate type here.

Cheers, 

Brian

> On 12 Dec 2023, at 09:42, <Ahmed.Elhassany@swisscom.com> <Ahmed.Elhassany@swisscom.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello all, 
>  
> I noticed IE 501 srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength is recently added to the ipfix registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xmlwithout an abstract data type defined (in XML registry <dataType/>). I checked RFC 9487 that added this element to the registry, and it also doesn’t define an abstract data type for IE 501 srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength.
>  
>  
> This sound contradictory to RFC  7012 which states that:
> dataType - One of the types listed in Section 3.1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012.html#section-3.1> of this document or
>       registered in the IANA "IPFIX Information Element Data Types"
>       subregistry.
>  
> The implication for not putting a data type in the registry that automated code generators for parsing and handling IPFIX will not work. A user must intervene manually and read the references RFCs to figure out the appropriate data type to be used.
>  
> My question to the mailing list: Is my understanding for RFC7012 correct that a data type must be defined as one of IPFIX Information Element Data Types? And if so, I think we need to report an erratum for the RFC9487 and update the registry accordingly.
>  
>  
> Best,
> -Ahmed
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org <mailto:IPFIX@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix