Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX length fields

On 03/02/2012 02:14 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Hi, Paul,
[ snip ]
>
>
> 3.10.  Data Type and Semantics Restrictions
>
>     Note that the informationElementSemantics values defined in Section
>     3.2 of [RFC5102] are primarily intended to differentiate semantic
>     interpretation of numeric values, and that not all combinations of
>     the informationElementDataType and informationElementSemantics
>     Information Elements are valid; e.g., a counter cannot be encoded as
>     an IPv4 address.  The following are acceptable values of
>     informationElementSemantics:
>
>     o  Any value is valid for unsigned informationElementDataType values
>        ("unsigned8", "unsigned16", "unsigned32", or "unsigned64").
>
>     o  Any value except "flags" is valid for signed
>        informationElementDataType values ("signed8", "signed16",
>        "signed32", or "signed64").
>
>     o  Any value except "identifier" or "flags" is valid for floating-
>        point informationElementDataType values ("float32" or "float64").
>
>     o  Only "default" is valid for all other informationElementDataType
>        values ("octetArray", "boolean", "macAddress", "string",
>        "dateTimeSeconds", "dateTimeMilliseconds", "dateTimeMicroseconds",
>        "dateTimeNanoseconds", "ipv4Address", or "ipv6Address").
>
> In the interests of self-consistency, I would suggest that cleanup should follow those guidelines, or the guidelines themselves should be updated by an erratum and/or moved into 5102bis and updated there.
I'd be in favor of updating the guidelines.  I would think that at least 
"identifier" could apply to octetArray, macAddress, string, ipv4Address, 
and/or ipv4Address.  For the addresses I think it would always apply.

I don't currently have a preference of erratum vs 5102bis.

-Andrew
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix