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

PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <paitken@Brocade.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 17A0A1200FC for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTfXGHAEyoyE for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F1C1201FA for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000700.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v369Yv3A029196; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:37:33 -0700
Received: from brmwp-exmb11.corp.brocade.com ([208.47.132.227]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 29ndvs0yqq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:37:33 -0700
Received: from EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) by BRMWP-EXMB11.corp.brocade.com (172.16.59.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:37:31 -0600
Received: from [10.252.49.3] (10.252.49.3) by EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:37:24 +0200
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, <quittek@netlab.nec.de>, <stbryant@cisco.com>, <bclaise@cisco.com>, <paitken@cisco.com>, <jemeyer@paypal.com>, <joelja@bogus.com>, <n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz>, <quittek@neclab.eu>
References: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org> <8e179988-db1d-3419-3be4-b120ff6eb329@brocade.com> <481e0cd9-530a-d9ab-d8f3-e02f99f65821@gmail.com>
CC: <ipfix@ietf.org>
From: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>
Message-ID: <c8b7025e-923c-b5cb-dc85-4a5eda2c70eb@brocade.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:37:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <481e0cd9-530a-d9ab-d8f3-e02f99f65821@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.252.49.3]
X-ClientProxiedBy: hq1wp-excas13.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.103) To EMEAWP-EXMB12.corp.brocade.com (172.29.11.86)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-06_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1704060075
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/cmORzIZd53HT_fuX8nAeoUMbgrE>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:37:49 -0000

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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5102-26eid-3D4984&d=DwIC-g&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=l3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU&m=lbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo&s=qFdcGTGJe09BgcdUjB6EszW7hMzekalZnfj8wx5JlNw&e= 
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Technical
>>> Reported by: Paul Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>;
>>>
>>> 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
>>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> IPFIX@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix&d=DwIC-g&c=IL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg&r=l3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU&m=lbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo&s=2CAUPZ9aGFiHyUVUtn2cZFp3fcwj4DUALHp38x4XnC8&e= 
>
>