https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-06.txt
1. Introduction
A brief overview of UDP option is provided in Section 3.
Typo, "UDP options" (plural).
The IE specified in Section 4.1 uses the new abstract data type
defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh].
The unsigned256 type? It makes more sense to introduce a bitfield type.
3. UDP Options at a Glance
Also, Section 4.3 specifies a new IPFIX to
export observed ExIDs in the UEXP options.
Something is missing here: "a new IPFIX IE to ...".
Only 16-bits ExIDs are supported.
Clarify, "Only 16-bits ExIDs are supported in UDP."
The motivation for
exporting such data is similar to the one for exporting TCP options
(tcpOptions) or IPv6 Extension Headers (ipv6ExtensionHeaders).
Please state the motivation or include an xref where the motivation can be
found.
4.1 - 4.3
These definitions should be in the IANA section.
5. An Example
Given UDP kind allocation in Section 10 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] and the option mapping defined in
Section 4.1,
Section 4.1 of what?
4.1. udpOptions
To cover the 0-255 kind range, up to 255 flags can be set in the
value field.
Up to 256 flags.
For example, if only option kinds =< 32 are observed
Conventionally "<=" is used.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned256
It's not an integer, it's a bitfield.
4.2 and 4.3
It would be better to spell out the names in full:
udpExperimentalOptionSafeExID and udpExperimentalOptionUnsafeExID
I would not have understand what these measure, nor how to encode them, without
having first reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh. Examples in section 5
would be useful.
The octetArray type is especially confusing as these are really hextetArrays.
4.3. udpUnsafeExpOptionExID
Description: Observed Expermients ID (ExIDs) in the UNSAFE
Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).
Typo, "Experiments".
P.
On 18/12/23 19:22, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
We’d like to kick off a [rather extended] WG LC on the three IPFIX-related
“fixes” documents we have in the hopper. We’ve already requested some
directorate reviews for these, and the authors feel they have stabilized well.
Please review:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/
[datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCMEo_jvU$>
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/
[datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCG_d35-j$>
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/
[datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCAzlAEMT$>
And comment as to whether or not you feel they are in the right shape to
progress to the IESG. We will run this LC until Jan 8 given that the holidays
means some people will not be around. Also note that an IPR poll was conducted
prior to adoption and no known IPR has been disclosed.
Thanks.
Joe
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix__;!!OSsGDw!I6YR3K0-150A1C0ElDbVuvpjkK-Ylkh69dILZCWJl3lPScov6t5X2FzyrjqruiynmXjCnHZBzRn1Gy8IthVfCO14NBgv$
[ietf[.]org]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
