Hi David, Thank you for updating and catching those additional inconsistencies! The changes look good.
Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 16, 2025, at 5:14 PM, David Dong via RT <iana-mat...@iana.org> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > We've updated the registry to fix these and a few other inconsistencies with > the published document (quotation marks around registry names, one instance > of LSB/MSB abbreviation, a missing line for "ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull" under > Additional Information); please see: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ > > Thank you. > > Best regards, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > On Tue Sep 16 20:17:46 2025, apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: >> 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
