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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I looked back at the history of this.

This is the last email: discussion with Paul Aikten about 
srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/S7lMHhekA7ty7KjUS5LXwlkq950/#


    Question: should srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength be changed to quantity? I
    think so (remember: doc in AUTH48)

Without reply, I went for the path of IFPIX IANA registry consistency, 
so sourceIPv4PrefixLength as an example.

If we collectively agree to have an errata here, fine.
However, more updates are required to the IPFIX IANA. 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/ ?)

Regards, Benoit

On 12/12/2023 12:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> That’s interesting to see these diffs between -14 and RFC. I limited 
> my erratum report to the abstract data type for IE 501, see 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7728.
>
> However, for the differences between -14 and RFC, I don’t have enough 
> expertise to report about it. I hope someone more expert than myself 
> on IETF processes can take care of this.
>
> Best,
>
> -Ahmed
>
> *From: *"Aitken, Paul" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 12 December 2023 at 13:04
> *To: *"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[e-mail]>, "Elhassany Ahmed, 
> INI-NET-VNC-HCS" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Benoit Claise 
> <[e-mail]>, "Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS" 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [IPFIX] Data type for srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength in 
> IPFIX Entities registry
>
>
> 	
>
> *Be aware:*This is an external email.
>
> RFC 9487 does not reflect what the IPFIX experts reviewed in the last 
> draft (-14), as there are several differences between the "IANA 
> Considerations" sections:
>
> .1 and .10a below need errata. The others need the authors input.
>
>
> 5.1
>
> The title, "IPFIX Information Elements Registry" and the "Table 1: 
> IPFIX Information Elements Registry" descriptions are wrong, as this 
> table is not the whole registry, but only the "New IPFIX IPv6 SRH 
> Information Elements" at stated in -14.
>
>
> 5.1.6 / Description
>
> -14:    The SRH Segment List
> RFC:    The SRv6 Segment List
>
>
> 5.1.7 / Description
>
> -14:    to reach the end of the Segment List in the SRH
> RFC:    to reach the end of the Segment List from the SRH
>
>
> 5.1.10 / Abstract Data Type
>
> -14: Abstract Data Type:  unsigned8
> RFC: (missing text)
>
>
> 5.1.10 / Description
>
> -14: The SRH segment IPv6 locator length
> RFC:    The length of the SRH segment IPv6 locator
>
>
> P.
>
>
> On 12/12/2023 08:46, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote:
>
>     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, <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         Hello all,
>
>         I noticed IE 501 srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength is recently added
>         to the ipfix
>         registryhttps://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml
>         <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml>without 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 inSection 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
>         ofIPFIX 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
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     IPFIX mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>