Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)
Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:29:13 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Paul If necessary you could write a one page RFC asking IANA to add a note to the registry. Stewart On 05/04/2017 19:16, 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 _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix