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

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 30 March 2017 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6032C1296AA for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EK_4sz1zp0gZ for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5956129698 for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 41C72B81373; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: quittek@netlab.nec.de, stbryant@cisco.com, bclaise@cisco.com, paitken@cisco.com, jemeyer@paypal.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: pjaitken@brocade.com, ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20170330124555.41C72B81373@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/kVHZMpthJpeWqdf0gj6NBO2-D6Q>
Subject: [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, 30 Mar 2017 12:46:08 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5102,
"Information Model for IP Flow Information Export".

You may review the report below and at:

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.

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.

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