ohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : tsv-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-
> ipfix@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-
> ipfix-03
>
> Hi Med,
>
> I understand that fewer bits are needed in practice, and RF
gt; À : tsv-...@ietf.org
>> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix....@ietf.org;
>> opsawg@ietf.org
>> Objet : Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-
>> 03
>>
>> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly
>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>
>&
).
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Tommy Pauly via Datatracker
> Envoyé : mardi 2 janvier 2024 18:08
> À : tsv-...@ietf.org
> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix@ietf.org;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfi
Reviewer: Tommy Pauly
Review result: Almost Ready
Thanks for writing a clear and succinct draft. I only found one issue of note,
around the registration of the new udpOptions Information Element.
Section 4.1:
The data type used for the “udpOptions” entry is just listed as “unsigned”, and
is
