Hi Paul,
Thank you very much for the detailed review.
There are some points that are common to the udp spec. Will discuss those in
separate threads.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : tsvwg De la part de Aitken, Paul
Envoyé : vendredi 19 janvier 2024 10:52
À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) ;
Hi Paul,
Thank you for the careful review and good suggestions. Went with almost all of
them.
Please see inline for more context.
Cheers,
Med
De : ipv6 De la part de Aitken, Paul
Envoyé : lundi 22 janvier 2024 22:50
À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc : t...@ietf.org;
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes
Abstract
The updates are also meant to bringing some
consistency among the entries of the registry.
Typo, "meant to bring in".
1. Introduction
As the OPSAWG is currently considering
This will soon become
Med,
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.
[Med] I think the use of unsigned256 is consistent with the current use in IP
Flow Information Export
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : ipv6 De la part de Aitken, Paul
Envoyé : vendredi 19 janvier 2024 11:58
À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc : t...@ietf.org; ts...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; ip...@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [IPv6] [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX
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
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh
Essentially the middle of this document is missing: a summary of issues is
given and new IEs are proposed as a solution. But the issues are not developed
or explained.
1.1. Issues with ipv6ExtensionHeaders Information
