[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh updates RFC 7012? 5610? was (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt)

Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> Mon, 05 February 2024 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E0FC14E513 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 08:36:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJZJHwLDcxx0 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 08:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0521C14F69C for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 08:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TTBhF4Mpwz6JB7h; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 00:30:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.94]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19C0D140B73; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 00:34:28 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.81.208.188] (10.81.208.188) by frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:34:26 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------uKZT4ULXaJgtyOO7GwTwyvca"
Message-ID: <d480dd86-c381-54d9-3c59-5f2387830f38@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 17:34:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: opsawg@ietf.org
References: <170601989137.24028.23808908138978775@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <170601989137.24028.23808908138978775@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.81.208.188]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/L7Aj2A_ujFtXwqywjsgrw4YJuQs>
Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh updates RFC 7012? 5610? was (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 16:36:20 -0000

Dear all,

With the introduction of new unsigned256  IPFIX data type (section 8.2), 
I am wondering whether draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh updates RFC 
7012? I guess so

 From RFC7012:


3.1 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#section-3.1>. 
Abstract Data Types

    This section describes the set of valid abstract data types of the
    IPFIX information model, independent of encoding.  Note that further
    abstract data types may be specified by future_updates to this document_.  Changes to the associated IPFIX "Information Element Data
    Types" subregistry [IANA-IPFIX  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7012#ref-IANA-IPFIX>] specified in [RFC5610  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5610>] require a
    Standards Action [RFC5226  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5226>].



Well actually, the registry 
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-information-element-data-types) 
points to RFC5610
So I guess this document should update both RFC7012 and RF5610.

Initially, I was thinking that an update to RFC 7011 would be necessary, 
to update the following text.
OLD:

6.1.1 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.1.1>. 
Integral Data Types

    Integral data types -- unsigned8, unsigned16, unsigned32, unsigned64,
    signed8, signed16, signed32, and signed64 -- MUST be encoded using
    the default canonical format in network byte order.  Signed integral
    data types are represented in two's complement notation.

NEW:
6.1.1 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.1.1>. 
Integral Data Types

    Integral data types -- unsigned8, unsigned16, unsigned32, unsigned64, unsigned256
    signed8, signed16, signed32, and signed64 -- MUST be encoded using
    the default canonical format in network byte order.  Signed integral
    data types are represented in two's complement notation.


However, I believe this is not really necessary.

Regards, Benoit

On 1/23/2024 3:24 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt is now available. It
> is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG
> of the IETF.
>
>     Title:   Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements
>     Authors: Mohamed Boucadair
>              Benoit Claise
>     Name:    draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.txt
>     Pages:   16
>     Dates:   2024-01-23
>
> Abstract:
>
>     This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
>     Information Elements (IEs) to solve some issues with existing
>     ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IPFIX IEs, especially the ability
>     to export any observed IPv6 extension headers or TCP options.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-09
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg