Re: [tcpm] [IPv6] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Benoit,

To clarify, RFC7270  "Cisco-Specific Information Elements  Reused in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)” is a public RFC published for the Internet Community.   Cisco doesn’t have any specific change control over it.

If there are known errors in it, they should be reported in an Errata.  The ADs who approve errata will take the correct action.

Bob


> On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> What the document dated from 2011 mentions does not matter too much.
> What is key is the Cisco internal document that contains the Cisco IPFIX registry.
> So when I wrote " I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX", I actually meant: " I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX without Cisco approving this".
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> On 2/5/2024 7:12 PM, Andrew Feren wrote:
>> Hi Benoit,
>>  
>> I see your point about not having an errata on a Cisco RFC.  That being said….
>>  
>> It appears that the IANA page has listed forwardingStatus(89) as unsigned8 since 2018.  Also CCO-NF9FMT <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a3db9.html>, the other cisco document referenced for forwardingStatus(89), is pretty unambiguous that forwardingStatus(89) is 1 byte.  Beyond that I don’t have strong feelings about this.  The different int sizes never seemed all that useful to me anyway since mostly it is the size sent in the template that matters.
>>  
>> -Andrew
>>  
>> From: IPFIX <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=[e-mail]> <mailto:benoit.claise=[e-mail]>
>> Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:37 PM
>> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Aitken, Paul <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents
>> 
>> [EXTERNAL] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>  
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     4.3.  forwardingStatus
>> 
>>     In particular, the registered Abstract
>>    Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32.
>> 
>> Why must it be?
>> [Med] As per the definition in RFC7270.
>> 
>> I've opened an errata for that: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7775
>> [Med] I don’ think an erratum applies here because the intent of 7270 is clearly unsigned32:
>>  
>> While you and I were working on NetFlow at Cisco when we wrote the RFC 7270, I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX.
>> Anyway, what is the issue with keeping unsigned32, should we be liberal in what we accept?
>> And we know that the reduced-size encoding (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.2) will be used anyway. It's not even useful to have this sentence ("
>> IPFIX reduced-size encoding is used as required") in the description but I can live with it.
>> 
>> Regards, Benoit
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the message from your email system. Thank you.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------