Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5655 (3560)
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Benoit, Though technically correct, this is, in my view, not what the range attribute in the registry is for. The intention of the restriction on the value of the messageScope IE is to be clear that it is not intended to convey any data in the record, simply to convey information in the type represented by the template. "Range" implies to me that the values actually have semantics. Further, it is not clear that it makes sense to go through the errata process _first_ on definitions of IEs in RFCs when we've just gone to a fair amount of effort to be very clear (through 5102bis and ie-doctors) that the IANA registry is the canonical reference for the information model. Otherwise, we logically have to file errata on 5102 every time the original IEs are updated through the ie-doctors process, which just seems like a lot of extra bureaucracy to me. Regards, Brian On 25 Mar 2013, at 11:59, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > This errata looks fine to me, but I want to hear from authors first, as this is the first time we will have a range of "0-0" in the IPFIX IANA registry. > > Regards, Benoit >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5655, >> "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5655&eid=3560 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Paul Aitken <[email protected]> >> >> Section: 8.2.11 + .18 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> (none) >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> Range: The valid range is 0-0. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> 8.2.11 messageScope requires a value of 0 ("The value of this Information Element MUST be written as 0") but no range is given. The range should say "0-0". (Compare with text in RFC 5102). >> >> >> >> Similarly for 8.2.18 sessionScope. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC5655 (draft-ietf-ipfix-file-05) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format >> Publication Date : October 2009 >> Author(s) : B. Trammell, E. Boschi, L. Mark, T. Zseby, A. Wagner >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : IP Flow Information Export >> Area : Operations and Management >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > IPFIX mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix