[IPFIX]Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7011 (8313)

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 07 March 2025 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipfix@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C669A8FF732 for <ipfix@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njUiFHD_fwPU for <ipfix@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 620E48FF724 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2239f8646f6so45988395ad.2 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:46:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1741387607; x=1741992407; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WM6xZSdTTppxq8zBJ5J5N+pvNFHXYY5XhrAXmAlUYLc=; b=WlOHTNFflHWn9u9gPu+yP9Vp1/aYEF0xQLoZ2+6f8xDTE/U56I7pVAcp3SPxlFNHay VK1Ts1Wv4ljlIvB86t01H3rgUrWve6ziS3Slfyiku3rdAYUHo6ObCEmSUCDJjjLd+cUX DAPsGclf77XjZCmRGEjFBoGF9NIfWGlKXGMP08uuzM4iy3JlxibxshL1GGC0h5NjXK3Z d0qzB8+NXAZ01fBNGcYt0NeoOaF+mySmR3wfRpfVweGrgy5JChLCZOtgyDNSRuZacIHX F+dzr7fkf1LXsQrWI8eoQKGxnEKTX4/Gi5ykP+x+YCsesXxeVwFfiwTc8FIGuw0hjT39 uxOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1741387607; x=1741992407; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WM6xZSdTTppxq8zBJ5J5N+pvNFHXYY5XhrAXmAlUYLc=; b=H/0B+xHkblRCqzb679MYbvD8NU2jYPOUlCzjIxvPru0ZPWxweSQh/mYKv2DQNK9/0S 0N9KiqrV8JdSbkJXDHKSpcA1IXM8cFUPBW4qzg4f3Ni8VGdKkZgQ2MDcYEfGiL77oIUO t6VhupP3ONeI7On3iNMVtxTZ2FPuupnVjTVF/gtnqQm3j7S8eNJIQpNCYrwbc9AXndJM 11YmKnNa744W1yp+3IygSlGtOdjx6gGuf23Ow7QvWo8vfG9ZJu/9lo108447BAP8mENr iLgekNKl98SgpV56lJ/btE3is9teqihV9ALKYxNpFw8W6L+RxAWdOLDBzwRmbx6pJynF 19Pg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUMx7UNpIweaPKzsgFDgHeQSXV8ZECZH4o0TRY27AO4u7ZNWbjhVhKSK2RIJxFdohFUCh/nzQ==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzHPUNhNtuSqhGXaOJW0ogXMgMGShmSItW9xKkGSGqerOHnUNJy j+HbYPiBA+Pge9fXFinWgucC8Ya9bv4RN22gsF4kY5arCQ7f2rJ/
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct9YCDxUaX9GDcBCtwSBO6NFGVGnz8PshHIhXPeP7fJGvDBisg8RDyARpouWft e3ptoOaPyNHGeHruYFIFyadd1RzHPDJBmyB7CEysVkZBWA1+OlCl/Si4hKPXz/QoNN9KnODTtr0 gZfa/Sr5SOGkX2tpWun31W9HC7WQF7FCJGzXYvef6TpAJUmwaugSGAMcm/7Pdl2JFEhZKQJcsjg 3OhTJptRf1uBdplWgWL3k9GgEKJgBWZpw0aNfDWFTmR96fnGeX2LH817u5SVuiVuXIxB/9xSRJo G61abMnvtXROYOYyeEkTsz/ja3oTlSuglLRUiX5u24UsRCjbba6pDUYtypQi4Jt+Zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEvt6Yvrn8Ufg0LErwbl4DQ4tGPoxHTP5YxtpMXwFZ74HSSRb5LvCfrc7GNeK+VGUkncQ8zvA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:7fa1:b0:1f3:33c2:29c5 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1f544ad8527mr10350921637.7.1741387607242; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([38.99.102.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-af281287c5asm3535331a12.69.2025.03.07.14.46.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:46:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1C0D7055-27D7-4BBA-B3C9-CF46F528AD00@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4CA2B3D5-A562-4334-8795-D3E472BF6EC2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.15\))
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 14:46:45 -0800
In-Reply-To: <A70E89E1-1C87-4C8E-A6AC-FCA0F0C85F39@staff.rfc-editor.org>
To: Madison Church <mchurch@staff.rfc-editor.org>
References: <20250225131302.8667125D912@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <A70E89E1-1C87-4C8E-A6AC-FCA0F0C85F39@staff.rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.15)
Message-ID-Hash: 3CIG5UA5BMUKUHTWZLHLPGB362NJ5KBG
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3CIG5UA5BMUKUHTWZLHLPGB362NJ5KBG
X-MailFrom: mjethanandani@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipfix.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, bclaise@cisco.com, trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch, paitken@cisco.com, ipfix@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPFIX]Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7011 (8313)
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/dTcYxi5mHcJq-OeE_LMjvY2XF0Q>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipfix>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipfix-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipfix-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipfix-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Madison,

Marking the errata as “Technical” is correct. 

After reading through the e-mail thread, I believe the report should be marked “Held for Document Update.”

Cheers.

> On Mar 7, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Madison Church <mchurch@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh and Warren,
> 
> We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approvers, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/) Please note that this document comes from the IP Flow Information Export (ipfix) working group, which is now concluded.
> 
> You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8313
> 
> Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8313
> 
> Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. 
> 
> Please see discussion of this errata report at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/JIQ3AVZKsxiQgCZn7SmYS8YPrcw/.
> 
> Thank you, 
> RFC Editor/mc
> 
>> On Feb 25, 2025, at 7:13 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7011,
>> "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information".
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8313
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>> 
>> Section: 3.2
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>  E
>> 
>>     Enterprise bit.  This is the first bit of the Field Specifier.  If
>>     this bit is zero, the Information Element identifier identifies an
>>     Information Element in [IANA-IPFIX], and the four-octet Enterprise
>>     Number field MUST NOT be present.  If this bit is one, the
>>     Information Element identifier identifies an enterprise-specific
>>     Information Element, and the Enterprise Number field MUST be
>>     present.
>> 
>>  Information Element identifier
>> 
>>     A numeric value that represents the Information Element.  Refer to
>>     [IANA-IPFIX].
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>  E
>> 
>>     Enterprise bit.  This is the first bit of the Field Specifier.  If
>>     this bit is zero, the Information Element identifier identifies an
>>     Information Element in [IANA-IPFIX], and the four-octet Enterprise
>>     Number field MUST NOT be present.  If this bit is one, the
>>     Information Element identifier identifies an enterprise-specific
>>     Information Element, and the Enterprise Number field MUST be
>>     present.
>> 
>>  Information Element identifier
>> 
>>     A numeric value that represents the Information Element. This field
>>     takes a value in [IANA-IPFIX] when the E bit is set to zero.
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> Makes it explicit that the values in [IANA-IPFIX] only applies when the is E-bit is unset. 
>> 
>> An alternative would be to simply delete "Refer to [IANA-IPFIX]." as the exact behavior is already mentioned under the E bit description.
>> 
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
>> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
>> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7011 (draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-10)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information
>> Publication Date    : September 2013
>> Author(s)           : B. Claise, Ed., B. Trammell, Ed., P. Aitken
>> Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
>> Source              : IP Flow Information Export
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 


Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com