Re: [IPFIX] RFC 6759 clarification question

Brian Trammell <[email protected]> Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:44:46 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi, Andrew,

I'd answer this question with RFC 7013 section 4.2 para 6 and section 4.9 para 4.

Cheers,

Brian

On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:18, Andrew Feren <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi IPFIX experts,
> 
> The discussion about how to encode boolean in draft-trammell-ipfix-text-adt got me thinking about some IEs from RFC 6759.
> 
> p2pTechnology(288), tunnelTechnology(289), and encryptedTechnology(290)
> 
> all specify possible values as '{ "yes", "y", 1 }, { "no", "n", 2 } and { "unassigned", "u", 0 }'.  It was not initially clear to me if the 0,1,and 2 were integer values or character values.  It was explained to me that that they are intended to be the integer values.
> 
> As I thought about this I wondered if "string" is really the right type for this?  True, all of the possible values can be represented as UTF-8, but this feels like an abuse of string type.  At least until now I had assumed that a string value was intended to be displayable, but this breaks that assumption.
> 
> Is my understanding of what string means flawed?
> 
> -Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 496 B)