Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)

What about an errata on 5102 with a note that that the definitions have moved to the registry?  Seems like an odd end run, but if it solves the problem...

-Andrew

________________________________________
From: IPFIX [[email protected]] on behalf of PJ Aitken [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:37 AM
To: Stewart Bryant; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5102 (4984)

That would be possible, though it seems like a lot of effort for the
addition of two clarifying words, "least significant" ?

P.


On 06/04/17 10:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata-5Fsearch.php-3Frfc-3D5102-26eid-3D4984%26d%3dDwIC-g%26c%3dIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg%26r%3dl3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU%26m%3dlbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo%26s%3dqFdcGTGJe09BgcdUjB6EszW7hMzekalZnfj8wx5JlNw%26e%3d&c=E,1,POSFjbIcmfzya-gNUP5rX4D4UfQQg4AwYC59vms0nF1wQWLNUVnaAiF5ob6Uae9OGK7KJmApL2_YmgpwUhW4gYwEcADORoaJSQoTSL3CL1vf&typo=1
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipfix%26d%3dDwIC-g%26c%3dIL_XqQWOjubgfqINi2jTzg%26r%3dl3qN-NVkUTPhhRxKVpFXRDjrG3WNcj_6aGqXB9E7JYU%26m%3dlbHlVRM8W9dbZUz-UVd1z1hzVa3rIiNL-6zIIFo8oMo%26s%3d2CAUPZ9aGFiHyUVUtn2cZFp3fcwj4DUALHp38x4XnC8%26e%3d&c=E,1,pcYrfKgiAK5NJHIqb30BLQrXBHi8Lo8-mgP6pHj3ho1uiEqr0t_tIoUPPm2W5esu67hb-exkoIxDnLvptn6Fk1XN_eXkMZbhZslQnOteFYgZtZG7_ZC0ruA,&typo=1
>
>

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix&c=E,1,usIqknq8V3E9Vc_Br3gQ45teOaNlF3LfzLHNrQfB4rcp1FD80k14Pk3JVl_c5gVkoOA2yrwp8SRtE_kUr0YLtIlWtEs33OppFfZ7Xp_6PNt-XItuFw,,&typo=1

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