[IPFIX] two issues for RFC5102bis
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear IPFIX experts, Two issues for RFC5102bis: Firstly, can we recognise that unsigned8, unsigned16, unsigned32, and unsigned64 aren't different types; they're simply different lengths of the same type. Accordingly, we should use a single "unsigned" type. Similarly for signed. Else, when using reduced size encoding to export unsigned64, the implication is that the _type_ changes? Clearly this isn't the case. The encoding of float32 and float64 differs, so these should remain as different types. Secondly, the info model should not specify the field size since sizes are specified in the template. There was one argument that the maximum length must be specified for collector database design. This is only an issue if differently-sized fields are stored in the same database - eg, the database field is only 8 bits wide, and is suddenly required to store a 16- or 32-bit wide field. This may only be an issue in an IPFIX aggregator. If this is a real issue, then the infomodel should specify the maximum length for each field, rather than confusing this with the field type. Thanks, P. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix