Re: [IPFIX] [SPAM I AM] RE: MPLS IEs in IANA's IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry

Hi Gregory,
>
> Hi Benoit,
>
> I'd prefer an update to existing IEs as well. All but two IEs can 
> corrected by updating their Description and References. Do you think 
> Name of two can be updated in the same manner?
>
We should review if RFC 7013 allows a name change... THe IE-DOCTORS will 
give a definitive answer.
Let me send them an email.
>
> Errata doesn't seem as the right way as these IEs been defined in RFC 
> 5102 (published January 2008).
>
This is not an issue. Since 7012, which updates RFC5102, IANA is the THE 
registry for IEs,  not the RFCs any longer.

        The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7012#ref-IANA-IPFIX>] is the
        current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements.  The
        initial values for this registry were provided by [RFC5102  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5102>].


Regards, Benoit.
>
> Your suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:07 PM
> *To:* Andrew Feren; Gregory Mirsky; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [IPFIX] [SPAM I AM] RE: MPLS IEs in IANA's IP Flow 
> Information Export (IPFIX) Entities registry
>
> Two points:
> - The EXP bits have been used for QoS mapping for years, even before 
> 2009 (RFC 5462 publication date)
> - Do you believe that deprecating/replacing all these IEs will imply 
> that exporter implementations will update their code, just for new 
> ElementID? :-)
>
> I would use the procedure in 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7013#section-5.2 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7013#section-5.2>
> Something like:
> OLD:
>
> The Label, Exp, and S fields from the label stack entry that was 
> pushed immediately before the label stack entry that would be reported 
> by mplsTopLabelStackSection. See the definition of 
> mplsTopLabelStackSection for further details.
>
> The size of this Information Element is 3 octets.
>
> NEW:
>
>     The Label, Traffic Class (previously called Exp in RFC3032
>     <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc3032>), and S fields from the label
>     stack entry that was pushed immediately before the label stack
>     entry that would be reported by mplsTopLabelStackSection. See the
>     definition of mplsTopLabelStackSection for further details.
>
>     The size of this Information Element is 3 octets.
>
> And change
> - the reference from RFC3032 <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc3032> to RFC5462
> - the revision +1
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
>     Then perhaps the right thing is to deprecate the lot and replace
>     them all.
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Andrew
>
>     On 09/10/2014 05:28 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>
>         Hi Andrew,
>
>         you're right, the RFC 5462 changed the interpretation of this
>         field as well (section 2 Details of Change):
>
>         *2.1* <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5462#section-2.1>*. RFC
>         3032 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3032>*
>
>         RFC 3032 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3032> states on page 4:
>
>               3. Experimental Use
>
>               This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use.
>
>            This paragraph is now changed to:
>
>               3. Traffic Class (TC) field
>
>               This three-bit field is used to carry traffic class
>         information,
>
>               and the change of the name is applicable to all places
>         it occurs
>
>               in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Greg
>
>         *From:*Andrew Feren [mailto:[email protected]]
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:25 PM
>         *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>         *Cc:* Gregory Mirsky
>         *Subject:* Re: [IPFIX] MPLS IEs in IANA's IP Flow Information
>         Export (IPFIX) Entities registry
>
>         Hi Greg,
>
>         On 09/10/2014 03:22 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>
>             Dear All,
>
>             in several places of describing MPLS Label element IEs the
>             registry still refers to the EXP field even though the RFC
>             5462 updated RFC 3032 and renamed it "Traffic Class" (TC).
>             Below is the list of IEs that may benefit from updating
>             Description and Reference information:
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection2
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection3
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection4
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection5
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection6
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection7
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection8
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection9
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelStackSection10
>
>             ·mplsTopLabelExp (should this be deprecated and
>             mplsTopLabelTc be created instead?)
>
>             ·postMplsTopLabelExp (should this be deprecated and
>             postMplsTopLabelTc be created instead?)
>
>
>         Did 5462 change just the name from Exp to TC or did the
>         interpretation of the bits change?
>
>         -Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     IPFIX mailing list
>
>     [email protected]  <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>

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