Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5655 (4306)

Thanks Paul,

I'll accept it.

Regards, Benoit
> [-RFC Editor]
>
> I checked the figure and agree with Wayne: the byte should be 0x16 
> because there's only one padding octet, not three.
>
> P.
>
>
> On 19/03/15 18:08, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5655,
>> "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) File Format".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5655&eid=4306
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Wayne Tackabury <[email protected]>
>>
>> Section: A.5
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>     224: 0A 47 0A B6 E5 47 0C 07 48 00|01 03 00 18 00 3E
>>             [ message checksum record ^ -->
>>     240: 2B 37 08 CE B2 0E 30 11 32 12 4A 5F E3 AD DB 00
>>
>>     256:|00 0A 05 10 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01
>>
>>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>     224: 0A 47 0A B6 E5 47 0C 07 48 00|01 03 00 16 00 3E
>>             [ message checksum record ^ -->
>>     240: 2B 37 08 CE B2 0E 30 11 32 12 4A 5F E3 AD DB 00
>>
>>     256:|00 0A 05 10 47 0A B6 E5 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01
>>
>>
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> First of all, note that per erratum #2030, the offsets in this whole 
>> section are wrong, it should begin (I think) at 192.  I shall use the 
>> published (incorrect) offset for illuminating this point:
>>
>> I believe the byte at #237 should be 0x16 and not 0x18.  I suspect 
>> this checksum was copy-pasted from a prior instance in the example, 
>> where there were three pad bytes added to the data record for #259 
>> (0x103).    In this instance, there is only one pad byte at #255, 
>> hence the offset here should be two less (22 or 0x16 and not 24 or 
>> 0x18):
>>
>>    2 bytes set ID
>>    2 bytes length
>>    1 byte option data
>>   16 bytes checksum data
>>    1 byte pad (at #255)
>>
>>   ...totalling 22. Thanks!
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC5655 (draft-ietf-ipfix-file-05)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Specification of the IP Flow Information Export 
>> (IPFIX) File Format
>> Publication Date    : October 2009
>> Author(s)           : B. Trammell, E. Boschi, L. Mark, T. Zseby, A. 
>> Wagner
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : IP Flow Information Export
>> Area                : Operations and Management
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>
> .
>

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