[IPFIX] potential IANA action - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)

Greetings,

Note that we have added IANA to this thread so they are aware of the
discussion taking place.

Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:16:33PM +0100, PJ Aitken wrote:
> I should point out that although RFC 5102 has been obsoleted by RFC 7012,
> 7012 doesn't actually contain any Information Element definitions; it simply
> points to IANA's IPFIX registry as the normative reference for Element
> definitions.
> 
> So the issue doesn't arise in 7012, and I suspect it's not possible to raise
> an errata against the registry.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> On 30/03/17 13:45, RFC Errata System wrote:
> >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5102,
> >"Information Model for IP Flow Information Export".
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >You may review the report below and at:
> >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5102&eid=4984
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >Type: Technical
> >Reported by: Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
> >
> >Section: 5.2.10, appA
> >
> >Original Text
> >-------------
> >Each bit represents an Information Element in the Data Record
> >with the n-th bit
> >representing the n-th Information Element.
> >
> >Corrected Text
> >--------------
> >Each bit represents an Information Element in the Data Record,
> >with the n-th least significant bit
> >representing the n-th Information Element.
> >
> >Notes
> >-----
> >A misunderstand arose as to whether bits were assigned in host order or network order - so clarify that the bits are assigned from the least significant to the most significant, ie right-to-left rather than left-to-right.
> >
> >Moreover, this clarification applies to IANA's IPFIX registry.
> >
> >NB RFC 8038 re-uses this definition for mibIndexIndicator. Consistency between the definitions is desirable.
> >
> >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
> >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >RFC5102 (draft-ietf-ipfix-info-15)
> >--------------------------------------
> >Title               : Information Model for IP Flow Information Export
> >Publication Date    : January 2008
> >Author(s)           : J. Quittek, S. Bryant, B. Claise, P. Aitken, J. Meyer
> >Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >Source              : IP Flow Information Export
> >Area                : Operations and Management
> >Stream              : IETF
> >Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >IPFIX mailing list
> >[email protected]

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