Re: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-text-adt-08.txt
Paul Aitken <[email protected]> Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:21:56 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Brian, > On 04 Aug 2014, at 10:04, Paul Aitken <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Brian, >> >>> This revision addresses final IETF LC comments on extensibility and copy/paste errors in the examples (thanks, Paul)! >> You missed tcpControlBits: since it's defined as unsigned16 in [IANA], you should either use unsigned16 or explain why unsigned8 is being used (eg, say that reduced-size encoding is being used). >> >> Recall: >> >>>> And tcpControlBits: >>>> >>>> tcpControlBits(6)<unsigned8>[1] >>>> >>>> - has been revised to unsigned16 [RFC7125]. Changing this would also make Figure 2 align more neatly. > Note that in a textual encoding, alignment is irrelevant. That was cut-n-paste from an earlier email. I can't immediately see what it was referring to. >>> It'll probably still be exported as 1 byte everywhere, but the type is indeed unsigned16 > Ah, indeed. Rev -09 then. > >> It would be useful to discuss reduced size encoding and show a specific example. eg, if I'm collecting ingressInterface which is nominally a u32, but I'm a small device so I only export a u8, should I export: >> >> ingressInterface(10)<unsigned32>[1] >> >> or >> >> ingressInterface(10)<unsigned8>[1] > This is an interesting question but it would not appear to be in scope at all for this document. Where would such a clarification be given if not here? P. _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix