Re: [IPFIX] Clarifying some wording in RFC 5101
Andrew Feren <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Me too, but if that is what it means maybe that is what we should say. :-) -Andrew On 09/26/2011 09:54 AM, Brian Trammell wrote: > Hi, Andrew, > > I always read it as meaning the first of your alternatives. > > Cheers, > > Brian > > > On Sep 26, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Andrew Feren wrote: > >> The discussion about timestamps in "The Metering Process Reliability Statistics Options Template" has me rereading RFCs. >> >> The following sentence in RFC 5101 section 9 doesn't parse. >> >> The Collector MUST support the use of Templates containing multiple >> occurrences of the similar Information Elements. >> >> Should this read something more like >> >> The Collector MUST support the use of Templates containing multiple >> occurrences of identical Information Elements. >> >> or >> >> The Collector MUST support the use of Templates containing multiple >> occurrences of the same Information Elements. >> >> or >> >> The Collector MUST support the use of Templates containing multiple >> occurrences of similar Information Elements. >> >> In the last case what does "similar" mean and why does it need a MUST or even to be stated at all? >> >> Is this something we can fix in 5101bis? >> >> -Andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> IPFIX mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix