Re: [IPFIX] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

["Aitken, Paul" <[e-mail]>]

Med,

      The following drawing indicates
      the position of each bit in the encoding of the Information
      Element.

No, not any more - so this should be removed.

[Med] It is useful as it indicates the bit position that is then referred to in the new IANA registry. Updated the figure to make that clearer.

The previous drawing indicated the positions of specific bits. The new drawing does not indicate the position of any of the bits:


                0     1     2     3     4     5     6     7
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
            |        IPv6 extension header bits             |  ...
            +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+



      This IE is used only when the observed extension headers are in
      the 0-31 range.

Consider deprecating this IE in favour of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull.
[Med]  Seems reasonable, but would like to hear more from the WG.

It would be worth proposing the deprecations in a separate email thread, because I can't imagine anyone else is following in sufficient detail.


    4.3.  forwardingStatus

    In particular, the registered Abstract
   Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32.

Why must it be?
[Med] As per the definition in RFC7270.

I've opened an errata for that: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7775


    6.10.  natType

Please take the opportunity to add the missing description, eg "This element identifies the type of NAT applied to packets of the flow."

[Med] Thanks. Went for: « This Information Element identifies the NAT type applied to packets of the Flow.”.

Thanks; that looks good.


P.