Re: [IPFIX] Clarifying some wording in RFC 5101
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Absolutely. Benoit, is the correct thing to do here for Andrew to file an editorial erratum? Cheers, Brian On Sep 26, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Andrew Feren wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix