Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs, Please see below for feedback from the experts.
Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist On Wed May 08 09:42:20 2024, [email protected] wrote: > > * 3. UDP Options at a Glance > > Add "to" : > > e.g., to discover a path MTU or share timestamps > > > > * 4. New UDP IPFIX Information Elements > > The URLs in the "note" should be listed in the references. The note > should say "to be updated / removed by the RFC editor". > > > > * 4.2. and 4.3. / Description > The information is encoded in a set of 16-bit fields. Each 16-bit > field carries the observed ExID in an EXP option. > I mis-parsed this as if each 16-bit field carries an EXP option: "Each > 16-bit field carries the observed ExID / in an EXP option." > > It may be clearer as, "Each 16-bit field carries the ExID which was > observed in an EXP option." > > > > * 4.2. and 4.3. > > No mention is made of whether ordering is important or unimportant. > > > > * 5. Examples > > Add "a": > > If a udpOptions IE is exported for this Flow, > > > > * Under Figure 2: > Let us now consider a UDP Flow in which both SAFE and UNSAFE > Experimental options are observed. Let us also consider that the > observed SAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0x9858 and > 0xE2D4, and UNSAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0xC3D9 and > 0x9858. > The last 0x9858 should be 0x9658 to correspond with the following > point 2 and Figure 4. > > 0x9858 and 0x9658 are very similar. Could more distinct values be > used? > > > > * Figure 3: > If udpOptions IE is exported for this Flow, then that IE will > have bits in positions 127 (EXP) and 254 (UEXP) set to 1 (Figure > 3<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp- > ipfix#ex-udp-shared>). > > The goal is to set bits 127 and 254, so it's confusing to see what > appears to be bits 1 and 128 set: > > MSB LSB > 12 25 > 0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |X|1|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X| > +-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Intuitively one would expect to see these bits: > > MSB LSB > 12 25 > 0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |X|X|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|1|X| > +-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > However since bit 2^n is set for option n, the problem is really with > the misleading bit numbering in the figure. > > ie, the example would be clearer without the numbering. > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
