Re: [tcpm] [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX documents

["Aitken, Paul" <[e-mail]>]

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-06.txt


    1.  Introduction

    A brief overview of UDP option is provided in Section 3.

Typo, "UDP options" (plural).


   The IE specified in Section 4.1 uses the new abstract data type
   defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh].

The unsigned256 type? It makes more sense to introduce a bitfield type.


    3.  UDP Options at a Glance

    Also, Section 4.3 specifies a new IPFIX to
    export observed ExIDs in the UEXP options.

Something is missing here: "a new IPFIX IE to ...".


    Only 16-bits ExIDs are supported.

Clarify, "Only 16-bits ExIDs are supported in UDP."


    The motivation for
   exporting such data is similar to the one for exporting TCP options
   (tcpOptions) or IPv6 Extension Headers (ipv6ExtensionHeaders).

Please state the motivation or include an xref where the motivation can be found.


    4.1 - 4.3

These definitions should be in the IANA section.


    5.  An Example

   Given UDP kind allocation in Section 10 of
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] and the option mapping defined in
   Section 4.1,

Section 4.1 of what?


    4.1.  udpOptions

      To cover the 0-255 kind range, up to 255 flags can be set in the
      value field.

Up to 256 flags.


    For example, if only option kinds =< 32 are observed

Conventionally "<=" is used.


        Abstract Data Type:  unsigned256

It's not an integer, it's a bitfield.


    4.2 and 4.3

It would be better to spell out the names in full: udpExperimentalOptionSafeExID and udpExperimentalOptionUnsafeExID


I would not have understand what these measure, nor how to encode them, without having first reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh. Examples in section 5 would be useful.

The octetArray type is especially confusing as these are really hextetArrays.



    4.3.  udpUnsafeExpOptionExID

   Description:  Observed Expermients ID (ExIDs) in the UNSAFE
      Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).

Typo, "Experiments".


P.


On 18/12/23 19:22, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
We’d like to kick off a [rather extended] WG LC on the three IPFIX-related “fixes” documents we have in the hopper.  We’ve already requested some directorate reviews for these, and the authors feel they have stabilized well.

Please review:


  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCMEo_jvU$>
  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCG_d35-j$>
  *   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCAzlAEMT$>

And comment as to whether or not you feel they are in the right shape to progress to the IESG.  We will run this LC until Jan 8 given that the holidays means some people will not be around.  Also note that an IPR poll was conducted prior to adoption and no known IPR has been disclosed.

Thanks.

Joe



_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCO14NBgv$ [ietf[.]org]