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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

As Brian mentioned, RFC 7013 section 5.2 applies here:

    2.  it corrects an ambiguity in the Information Element's definition,
        which itself leads to non-interoperability severe enough to
        prevent the Information Element's usage as originally defined
        (e.g., a prior change to ipv6ExtensionHeaders); or


Paul, as errata 4984 owner, can you please drop a note to IANA with the 
new definition.
Let's not forgot to bump the revision number by one, as mentioned in 
RFC7013 section 5.2.

Once done, even if it's not necessary, I'll accept the errata 4984.
There is no harm and it would be easier for a RFC 5102 reader, assuming 
someone would read this obsolete RFC (instead of the RFC 7102 that 
points to IANA)

Regards, Benoit

> So we've established that the change can be be made with or with out the errata.
>
> I'm in favor of making the clarifying change to the registry as proposed in the errata.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on the approval or not of the errata on 5102, but it it probably doesn't hurt to approve it if only as documentation of what was changed and why.
>
> -Andrew
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Brian Trammell (IETF) [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: Stewart Bryant
> Cc: Andrew Feren; PJ Aitken; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Benoit Claise; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Nevil Brownlee; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
>
> Hi, all,
>
> You can't raise an erratum against the registry, but 7013 provides for interoperable revisions to Information Elements to correct errors (section 5.2 criterion 2 holds).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>
>> On 06 Apr 2017, at 15:45, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> It depends on what IANA think, but it's only about an hour to write and the reviews will all go though on the nod.
>>
>> Of course as an AD Benoit may just be able to direct that that this obvious correction happens.
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>> On 06/04/2017 14:23, Andrew Feren wrote:
>>> 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 [[e-mail]] on behalf of PJ Aitken [[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:37 AM
>>> To: Stewart Bryant; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IPFIX mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix&c=E,1,usIqknq8V3E9Vc_Br3gQ45teOaNlF3LfzLHNrQfB4rcp1FD80k14Pk3JVl_c5gVkoOA2yrwp8SRtE_kUr0YLtIlWtEs33OppFfZ7Xp_6PNt-XItuFw,,&typo=1
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix&c=E,1,IYiyIN8296ZqBksTqvPeG0yzfRibAepQVoWtFsOwyWr9lG1Dbwrx1zu9eNVR7xKSQTQDqLnNQ7pTuXebyClfH884sMP3JzeBw-pbvsSnSedE0uaUlu0H&typo=1
> .
>