Benoit, > On Feb 6, 2024, at 1:12 PM, Benoit Claise <[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 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
