Hi all, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes creates a sub-registry to mirror the assignments in the IPv6 EH registry. The current text [1] says that codes are not assigned directly from the IPFIX sub-registry. Please let us know if we need to change that policy ? For example, whether we need to also include a provision for direct control via DE.
When checking the EHs listed in the IPFIX registry, we noted that 108 is listed as an EH, while this is not tagged as so in [2][3]. [1] tags bit position #15 as unassigned to align with other authoritative registries. Please let us know whether you have concerns with this change. Thanks. Cheers, Med [1] https://boucadair.github.io/simple-ipfix-fixes/#go.draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes.diff [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml [3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#extension-header ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
