[IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5655 (4306)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 19 March 2015 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700891A8A8D for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 y-bK5DVY4PEk for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A2E1A8AAA for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 28BEC180205; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: brian.trammell@hitachi-eu.com, elisa.boschi@hitachi-eu.com, lutz.mark@ifam.fraunhofer.de, tanja.zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.de, arno@wagner.name, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, quittek@neclab.eu
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150319180856.28BEC180205@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/pUKaepXztp1VoqRAxB6_90dAmxk>
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5655 (4306)
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 19 Mar 2015 18:10:22 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5655,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5655&eid=4306

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Wayne Tackabury <wtackabury@us.ibm.com>

Section: A.5

Original Text
-------------
   224: 0A 47 0A B6 E5 47 0C 07 48 00|01 03 00 18 00 3E
           [ message checksum record ^ -->
   240: 2B 37 08 CE B2 0E 30 11 32 12 4A 5F E3 AD DB 00

   256:|00 0A 05 10 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01



Corrected Text
--------------
   224: 0A 47 0A B6 E5 47 0C 07 48 00|01 03 00 16 00 3E
           [ message checksum record ^ -->
   240: 2B 37 08 CE B2 0E 30 11 32 12 4A 5F E3 AD DB 00

   256:|00 0A 05 10 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01



Notes
-----
First of all, note that per erratum #2030, the offsets in this whole section are wrong, it should begin (I think) at 192.  I shall use the published (incorrect) offset for illuminating this point:

I believe the byte at #237 should be 0x16 and not 0x18.  I suspect this checksum was copy-pasted from a prior instance in the example, where there were three pad bytes added to the data record for #259 (0x103).    In this instance, there is only one pad byte at #255, hence the offset here should be two less (22 or 0x16 and not 24 or 0x18): 

  2 bytes set ID
  2 bytes length
  1 byte option data
 16 bytes checksum data
  1 byte pad (at #255)

 ...totalling 22. Thanks!

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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5655 (draft-ietf-ipfix-file-05)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format
Publication Date    : October 2009
Author(s)           : B. Trammell, E. Boschi, L. Mark, T. Zseby, A. Wagner
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : IP Flow Information Export
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG