Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX length fields
Andrew Feren <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 03/02/2012 04:50 AM, Paul Aitken wrote: > Brian, > >> Hi, Paul, >> >> On Mar 2, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Paul Aitken wrote: >> >>>> Does this indicate a need to clarify the applicability of quantity >>>> vs no semantics in 5102bis? >>>> >>> Yes, it seems so. >> Would there be a problem simply with striking quantity completely, >> and noting what the meaning of "no semantics" is? >> >> (Indeed, the meaning of "no semantics" is type-dependent. Addresses >> are always identifiers. Numbers are usually quantities. And so on.) > > Rather than leave the semantics blank, with a hidden note elsewhere > about what that means, we should aim to give semantics for each IE. Agreed. If the semantics can be stated they should. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix