[OPSAWG]Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08

2024-05-21 Thread mohamed . boucadair
Hi Joe, Great. Thank you. Cheers, Med De : to...@strayalpha.com Envoyé : vendredi 17 mai 2024 23:14 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Objet : Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08 AOK - all set. Joe — Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist

[OPSAWG]Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08

2024-05-15 Thread Aitken, Paul
Med, Joe, - Reduced-size encoding per RFC7011 does not apply, unless you are restricting them to 64, 32, 16, and 8. [Med] There is no such restriction because of this part in the base spec: This behavior is indicated by the Exporter by specifying a size in the Template

[OPSAWG]Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08

2024-05-15 Thread mohamed . boucadair
tf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08 Hi, Med, I still have issue with the same two key parts: 1. This doc refers to unsigned192. [Med] Before defining the unsigned192, I first considered reusing unsigned256 + mandate that

[OPSAWG]Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-08

2024-05-14 Thread to...@strayalpha.com
Hi, Med, I still have issue with the same two key parts: 1. This doc refers to unsigned192. - That is not a native data type of any known computer. It needs to be defined. - Reduced-size encoding per RFC7011 does not apply, unless you are restricting them to 64, 32, 16, and 8.