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

FYI, 1 and 2 are used for MIB TruthValue.

Also 0 is often used as a "don't know", so 1/2 avoids any ambiguity.

P.


On 28/01/2014 15:05, Andrew Feren wrote:
> 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