IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> Mon, 05 February 2024 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <benoit.claise@huawei.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 E8AF1C14F68A; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:37:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6aKC3Jl4AFL; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F9EFC14F684; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TTD4h4Nh3z6K998; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 01:33:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.94]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C6F6140B73; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 01:36:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.81.208.188] (10.81.208.188) by frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:36:50 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------cWugtTvv0fLIL72con0Ve4f8"
Message-ID: <ca39adfb-2738-0d69-01ee-01437a6fd9f5@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 18:36:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "Aitken, Paul" <paitken@ciena.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
CC: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
References: <BN9PR11MB53716555BC4D0F4FB8921408B890A@BN9PR11MB5371.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <2d9602ce-6eb5-4667-b1c9-3db74590f352@ciena.com> <DU2PR02MB10160C3A2EC2AD4B08EA0C6D488742@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <7da20efd-b7a2-44e7-9031-0f35b9ea837b@ciena.com> <DU2PR02MB101608C2847178159CA1C540E88742@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <DU2PR02MB101608C2847178159CA1C540E88742@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.81.208.188]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/UQ_ujCEcm26nUYeCEsxgoKAYaaA>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 17:37:02 -0000

Hi Paul,

On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>
>         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
>
> */[Med] I don’ think an erratum applies here because the intent of 
> 7270 is clearly unsigned32:/*
>
>
While you and I were working on NetFlow at Cisco when we wrote the RFC 
7270, I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX.
Anyway, what is the issue with keeping unsigned32, should we be liberal 
in what we accept?
And we know that the reduced-size encoding 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.2) will be 
used anyway. It's not even useful to have this sentence ("
IPFIX reduced-size encoding is used as required") in the description but 
I can live with it.

Regards, Benoit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email