Re: [IPv6] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Hi all,

Bob is right here.

However, the intent of the original text is unambiguous as per the following:

==
Description

      This Information Element describes the forwarding status of the
      flow and any attached reasons.  The reduced-size encoding rules as
      per [RFC7011] apply.

      The basic encoding is 8 bits.  The future extensions
      could add one or three bytes.


Abstract Data Type:  unsigned32
==

Unless an extension is defined, unsigned8 will be used anyway following the reduced-encoding in 7011.

Cheers,
Med

De : Bob Hinden <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mardi 6 février 2024 23:48
À : Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
Cc : Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Andrew Feren <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; Aitken, Paul <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Objet : Re: [IPv6] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Benoit,


On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:12 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi Bob,
On 2/6/2024 6:18 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Benoit,

To clarify, RFC7270  "Cisco-Specific Information Elements  Reused in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)” is a public RFC published for the Internet Community.   Cisco doesn’t have any specific change control over it.
Agreed, but they (Cisco) have to say whether this is an error or not, not the community.

I would put it differently.    Anyone can report an errata, the Area Directors make the decision if the errata is accepted.   That may including checking with the authors.   They do not check with the company where the authors worked at the time the RFC was published.

Bob





Regards, Benoit


If there are known errors in it, they should be reported in an Errata.  The ADs who approve errata will take the correct action.

Bob



On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:19 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

What the document dated from 2011 mentions does not matter too much.
What is key is the Cisco internal document that contains the Cisco IPFIX registry.
So when I wrote " I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX", I actually meant: " I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX without Cisco approving this".

Regards, Benoit

On 2/5/2024 7:12 PM, Andrew Feren wrote:
Hi Benoit,

I see your point about not having an errata on a Cisco RFC.  That being said….

It appears that the IANA page has listed forwardingStatus(89) as unsigned8 since 2018.  Also CCO-NF9FMT<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk362/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a3db9.html>, the other cisco document referenced for forwardingStatus(89), is pretty unambiguous that forwardingStatus(89) is 1 byte.  Beyond that I don’t have strong feelings about this.  The different int sizes never seemed all that useful to me anyway since mostly it is the size sent in the template that matters.

-Andrew

From: IPFIX <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Benoit Claise <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:37 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Aitken, Paul <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents
[EXTERNAL] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Paul,
On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
    4.3.  forwardingStatus

    In particular, the registered Abstract
   Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32.

Why must it be?
[Med] As per the definition in RFC7270.

I've opened an errata for that: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7775
[Med] I don’ think an erratum applies here because the intent of 7270 is clearly unsigned32:

While you and I were working on NetFlow at Cisco when we wrote the RFC 7270, I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX.
Anyway, what is the issue with keeping unsigned32, should we be liberal in what we accept?
And we know that the reduced-size encoding (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.2) will be used anyway. It's not even useful to have this sentence ("
IPFIX reduced-size encoding is used as required") in the description but I can live with it.

Regards, Benoit



This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the message from your email system. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

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