IANA, Med noticed some inconsistencies between the published document and the "IPFIX Information Elements” registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-information-elements>. Please update the registry to match the published document.
See this diff file: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18&url2=rfc9740&difftype=--html 1) Please update the Description of ElementID 515 ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull as follows: - remove hyphens from “least-significant” and “most-significant” - add a comma between “IE” and “while" - update “chain” to “chains” - update “between” to “of" Old: Bit 0 corresponds to the least-significant bit in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE while bit 255 corresponds to the most-significant bit of the IE. … Extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chain MUST NOT be grouped in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE if the ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList IE is also present. If the ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList IE is not present, then extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chain MAY be grouped in one single ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE or be exported in separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IEs, one for each extension header chain. The ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE MUST NOT be exported if ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE is also present because of the overlapping scopes between these two IEs. New: Bit 0 corresponds to the least significant bit in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE, while bit 255 corresponds to the most significant bit of the IE. … Extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST NOT be grouped in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE if the ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList IE is also present. If the ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList IE is not present, then extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains MAY be grouped in one single ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE or be exported in separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IEs, one for each extension header chain. The ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE MUST NOT be exported if ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE is also present because of the overlapping scopes of these two IEs. 2) Please update the Description of ElementID 516 ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList as follows: - add article “a" - update “chain” to “chains" Old: Each header chain in Flow with varying extension header chain MUST be exported in a separate IE. … For example, if an IPv6 packet of a Flow includes a Hop-by-Hop Options header, a Destination Options header, a Fragment header, and Destination Options header, the ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE will report: New: Each header chain in a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST be exported in a separate IE. … For example, if an IPv6 packet of a Flow includes a Hop-by-Hop Options header, a Destination Options header, a Fragment header, and a Destination Options header, the ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE will report: 3) Please update the Description of ElementID 517 ipv6ExtensionHeadersLimit as follows: - update “headers” to “header” Old: When set to “false”, this IE indicates that the exported extension headers information (e.g., ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull or ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList) does not match the full enclosed extension headers, but only up to a limit that is typically set by the hardware or software. New: When set to “false”, this IE indicates that the exported extension header information (e.g., ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull or ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList) does not match the full enclosed extension headers, but only up to a limit that is typically set by the hardware or software. 4) Please update the Description of ElementID 518 ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength as follows: - update “are” to “were” - update “length” to “lengths” - update “chain” to “chains” Old: However, it was regularly reported that IPv6 packets with extension headers are often dropped in the Internet (e.g., [RFC7872]). … The length is the sum of the length of all extension headers of the chain. … Each header chain length of a Flow with varying extension header chain MUST be exported in a separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE. New: However, it was regularly reported that IPv6 packets with extension headers were often dropped in the Internet (e.g., [RFC7872]). … The length is the sum of the lengths of all extension headers of the chain. … Each header chain length of a Flow with varying extension header chains MUST be exported in a separate ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE. 5) Please update the Description of Element ID 519 ipv6ExtensionHeaderChainLengthList as follows: - update “length” to “lengths” - update “chain” to “chains” Old: This IE is used to report the chains and their length as observed in a Flow with varying extension header chain. New: This IE is used to report the chains and their lengths as observed in a Flow with varying extension header chains. 6) Please update the Description of ElementID 520 tcpOptionsFull as follows: - remove hyphens from “least-significant” and “most-significant” - add comma between “IE” and “while" Old: TCP option Kind 0 corresponds to the least-significant bit in the tcpOptionsFull IE while Kind 255 corresponds to the most-significant bit of the IE. New: TCP option Kind 0 corresponds to the least significant bit in the tcpOptionsFull IE, while Kind 255 corresponds to the most significant bit of the IE. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Feb 25, 2025, at 6:37 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-mat...@iana.org> > wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > On Tue Feb 25 22:53:04 2025, aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: >> IANA, >> Re: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp- >> parameters.xhtml#tcp-exids >> Would you please cap the 'C' in 'Communications' in this existing >> description? >> >> Old: 0xE2D4C3D9 Shared Memory communications over RDMA protocol >> [RFC7609] >> New: 0xE2D4C3D9 Shared Memory Communications over RDMA protocol >> [RFC7609] > > Done. Please see: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters > > Thanks, > Sabrina > >> The IANA Cons. of RFC 7609 (https://www.rfc- >> editor.org/rfc/rfc7609.html#section-6) does not contain this exact >> text, but it does appear elsewhere in the RFC (abstract, >> introduction). >> >> Thank you. >> RFC Editor/ar >> >> On Feb 24, 2025, at 8:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> [...] >>> • I agree with the change in the first para of S6.2.2. However, >>> please note that the OLD text was echoing the content at >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp- >>> parameters.xhtml#tcp-exids. It is worth to report this to IANA. >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
