Re: [IPFIX] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt-00.txt

Hi all,

On 01/28/2014 09:33 AM, Paul Aitken wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Here's a review of draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt-00.
>
> P.
>
>
[ snip ]
>> 4.5.  boolean
>>
>>    If the Enclosing Context defines a representation for boolean values,
>>    that representation SHOULD be used.
>>
>>    Otherwise, a true boolean value should be represented with the
>>    literal string 1, and a false boolean value with the literal string
>>    0.  In ABNF:
>>
>>    boolean-yes = "1"
>>
>>    boolean-no = "0"
>>
>>    boolean = boolean-yes / boolean-no
>
> Why 1/0 rather than true/false or yes/no ?

Also why the departure from 1 for true and 2 for false in RFC 7011.

"
6.1.5.  boolean

   The boolean data type is specified according to the TruthValue in
   [RFC2579].  It is encoded as a single-octet integer per
   Section 6.1.1, with the value 1 for true and value 2 for false.
   Every other value is undefined."

1 and 2 aren't what I would have picked, but changing it up here only
seems to create potential confusion.

As for why not true/false, I'm all in favor of a single encoding, but we
already have IEs where 'Possible values are: { "yes", "y", 1 }, { "no",
"n", 2 } and { "unassigned", "u", 0 }.'  (As an aside does anyone know
why so many options anyways?)

-Andrew

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