Re: [IPFIX] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03
Andrew Feren <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/10/2012 09:59 AM, Paul Aitken wrote: > draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03 Dear all, > > Here's a comprehensive review of draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-03 : > > >> >> >> >> >> Network Working Group B. Claise, Ed. >> Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. >> Obsoletes: 5101 B. Trammell, Ed. >> Category: Standards Track ETH Zurich >> Expires: May 24, 2013 November 20, 2012 >> >> >> Specification of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Protocol [ snip ] >> 6.1.9 dateTimeMicroseconds >> >> The data type dateTimeMicroseconds is a 64-bit field encoded >> according to the NTP Timestamp format as defined in section 6 of >> [RFC5905]. This field is made up of two unsigned 32-bit integers in >> network byte order, Seconds and Fraction. The Seconds field is the >> number of seconds since the NTP epoch, 1 January 1900 at 00:00 UTC. >> The Fraction field is the fractional number of seconds in units of >> 1/(2^32) seconds (approximately 233 picoseconds). It can represent >> dates beginning between 1 January 1900 and 8 February 2036. > > Since we're already over 80% through that range, it seems worth moving > the epoch to 1/1/2000. > I don't disagree that this would have made sense, but can we reasonably make this change in 5101bis? Will this make a 5101 collector incorrectly interpret 5101bis? Maybe I am missing something. -Andrew _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix