Re: [IPFIX] [IANA #579482] General Request for Assignment (ipfix)

Hi Paul,


On 07/16/2012 04:21 PM, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Andrew,
>
>> Are the semantics for these really "identifier"?
>
> Per RFC5610 and RFC6313, there are just 7 semantics to choose from. 
> See 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml#ipfix-information-element-semantics.
>
> Note that a standards action is required to introduce new semantics.

Understood.

>
> 361 and 362 are port numbers. Notice that the semantics for all the 
> other port elements (sourceTransportPort, destinationTransportPort, 
> udpSourcePort, udpDestinationPort, tcpSourcePort, tcpDestinationPort, 
> collectorTransportPort, exporterTransportPort, 
> postNAPTSourceTransportPort, and postNAPTDestinationTransportPort) are 
> all "identifier", since the value identifies a port.

I agree that 361 and 362 are port numbers which are identifiers.  My 
thinking, however, was that none of these are really identifiers 
individually.  Information Element Ids are identifiers too, but 
informationElementRangeBegin (342) and informationElementRangeEnd (343) 
have semantics of 'quantity' (which is neither 'default' nor 
'identifier'.  :-)

Should informationElementRangeBegin and informationElementRangeEnd have 
semantics of 'default'?

Now that I am typing this I think we covered some of this ground before 
in this thread 
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipfix/current/msg06269.html). I 
don't yet have a strong opinion on what the right answer is.  I just got 
curious while I was reviewing information elemnts that had been added 
since the last time I pulled the list.

-Andrew

>
> 363 and 364 are simple numbers. If "identifier" is not appropriate for 
> these, then "default" is the only other possibility.
>
> P.
>
>
>> On 06/18/2012 07:08 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi again Amanda:
>>>
>>> These four have been discussed on the IPFIX list, they're OK as
>>> submitted. They'll be
>>>
>>>   361  portRangeStart
>>>   362  portRangeEnd
>>>   363  portRangeStepSize
>>>   364  portRangeNumPorts
>>>
>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/06/12 8:51 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
>>>> Hi Nevil,
>>>>
>>>> Here's Paul's second request.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Amanda
>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> Contact Name:
>>>> Paul Aitken
>>>>
>>>> Contact Email:
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> Type of Assignment:
>>>> IPFIX Information Elements
>>>>
>>>> Registry:
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml#ipfix-information-elements 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Description:
>>>> Please allocate the four new fields specified below, which may be used
>>>> in various combinations to specify port ranges in IPFIX.
>>>>
>>>> Additional Info:
>>>> Name: portRangeStart
>>>> Type: unsigned16
>>>> Semantics: identifier
>>>> Description: The port number identifying the start of a range of 
>>>> ports.
>>>> A value of zero indicates that the range start is not specified, ie 
>>>> the
>>>> range is defined in some other way.
>>>> Additional information on defined TCP port numbers can be found at 
>>>> [IANA
>>>> registry port-numbers].
>>>>
>>>> Name: portRangeEnd
>>>> Type: unsigned16
>>>> Semantics: identifier
>>>> Description: The port number identifying the end of a range of ports.
>>>> A value of zero indicates that the range end is not specified, ie the
>>>> range is defined in some other way.
>>>> Additional information on defined TCP port numbers can be found at 
>>>> [IANA
>>>> registry port-numbers].
>>>>
>>>> Name: portRangeStepSize
>>>> Type: unsigned16
>>>> Semantics: identifier
>>>> Description: The step size in a port range. The default step size 
>>>> is 1,
>>>> which indicates contiguous ports.
>>>> A value of zero indicates that the step size is not specified, ie the
>>>> range is defined in some other way.
>>>>
>>>> Name: portRangeNumPorts
>>>> Type: unsigned16
>>>> Semantics: identifier
>>>> Description: The number of ports in a port range.
>>>> A value of zero indicates that the number of ports is not 
>>>> specified, ie
>>>> the range is defined in some other way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>

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