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

[PJ Aitken <[e-mail]>]

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 <[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://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= 
>
>