Re: [IPFIX] On Encodings in RFC5102bis

Hi Brian,

That all looks good.

-Andrew

On 12/14/2012 05:54 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> In reviewing WGLC comments on 5101bis, specifically with respect to timestamp wraparound (on which I'm still working on a response), I had a look at RFC5102bis to see if the text there would be compatible with such a thing. The sections describing the POSIX-based abstract data types which include, unlike the others, encoding details; I would suggest removing the encoding details, leaving them for RFC5101bis (and alternate encodings, as in draft-trammell-ipfix-text-adt), to be consistent with the rest of RFC5102bis.
>
>
> OLD:
>
> 3.1.15.  dateTimeSeconds
>
>     The data type dateTimeSeconds is an unsigned 32-bit integer
>     representing the number of seconds since the UNIX epoch, 1 January
>     1970 at 00:00 UTC, as defined in [POSIX.1].
>
> 3.1.16.  dateTimeMilliseconds
>
>     The data type dateTimeMilliseconds is an unsigned 64-bit integer
>     containing the number of milliseconds since the UNIX epoch, 1 January
>     1970 at 00:00 UTC, as defined in [POSIX.1].
>
>
> NEW:
>
> 3.1.15.  dateTimeSeconds
>
>     The data type dateTimeSeconds represents
>     the number of seconds since the UNIX epoch, 1 January
>     1970 at 00:00 UTC, as defined in [POSIX.1].
>
> 3.1.16.  dateTimeMilliseconds
>
>     The data type dateTimeMilliseconds represents
>     the number of milliseconds since the UNIX epoch, 1 January
>     1970 at 00:00 UTC, as defined in [POSIX.1].
>
>
> (The reference to [POSIX.1] remains necessary to clarify leap second issues; i.e., this value is can be directly derived from the system clock on a UNIX-like machine).
>
>
> While reviewing this, I noticed that there's one other encoding-specific as opposed to data-specific ADT: macAddress. I'd suggest the following change as well:
>
>
> OLD:
>
> 3.1.12.  macAddress
>
>     The type "macAddress" represents a string of 6 octets.
>
>
> NEW:
>
> 3.1.12.  macAddress
>
>     The type "macAddress" represents a MAC-48 address.
>
>
> I'd specify MAC-48 as opposed to EUI-48, because it's not clear that require global uniqueness. On this point, does anyone know of the correct reference to use here? I've been looking at various 802 cross-references in RFCs but can't find anything that fits yet...
>
> Comments? Even a "looks good" would be helpful. I'd like to make this last change soon, so an -08 revision can be written up and sent up to the IESG.
>
> Thanks, cheers,
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

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