On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Re-,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> > Envoyé : jeudi 11 juillet 2024 12:11
> > À : The IESG <[email protected]>
> > Cc : [email protected]; opsawg-
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Objet : Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-
> > udp-ipfix-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> >
> > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-13: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
> > to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Tommy Pauly
> > for the TSVART
> > review.
> >
> > I would like to discuss something that might not be completely
> > technical but we
> > should understand that aspect better. The sub-sections of section
> > 4 defines
> > udpXOptions and "reference" itself.
>
> [Med] Yes, because this is the reference of the document that
> specifies/request the registration.
>
>  My understanding is that it
> > should
> > reference to the draft where UDP options are defined.
>
> [Med] That's referenced in the Additional information.
>
> I won't provide the long story here that motivated the note but the short
> one is the note in the registry:
>
>     "The columns previously titled "References" and "Requester" have been
>     renamed "Additional Information" and "Reference", respectively."
>

OK, great. Thanks for this information.


>
>  My
> > understading can be
> > wrong, but this is what is done for tcpOptions in RFC5102. So, I
> > would like to
> > discuss if we are referencing to the correct document or not.
>
> [Med] I confirm the current registration is correct.
>
> >
> > Another discussion - as this specification is based on
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options, that draft already defines number
> > of Kind values
> > for SAFE and UNSAFE options then why we are not defining IEs for
> > them?
> >
>
> [Med] Not sure to get your point. We do have IEs that can exports kinds
> for both SAFE and UNSAFE. We used to have these in one single IEn but
> abandoned that design because it was suboptimal for an encoding compactness
> perspective.


I see, then it was not that clear that we are abandoned that desing in
favour of encoding effiency. I think it would need  some backgoround and
rational on that to clarify the design choice.

I will clear my discuss and move the last point to the comment section so
that we can provide some clarification.

Thanks for your promt reply, Med.

//Zahed


>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to