Hi again,
Apologies - I spoke too soon. May we update these references as follows?
1) RFC 4646 has been obsoleted by RFC 5646 (BCP 47)? May we update the text to
refer to RFC 5646?
7.4.2. NEW
Description: A UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode string containing a
human-readable description of an Information Element. The content
of the informationElementDescription MAY be annotated with one or
more language tags [RFC4646], encoded in-line [RFC2482] within the
UTF-8 string, …
2) RFC 5102 has been obsoleted by RFC 7012. We see the following note about
this in the RFC. Is it correct for the NEW text to continue to refer to RFC
5102?
Note that, as per Section 5 of [RFC7012], [IANA-IPFIX] is the
normative reference for the IPFIX IEs that were defined in [RFC5102].
Examples where NEW text refers to RFC 5102:
6.12.2. NEW
Description: A description of the abstract data type of an IPFIX
information element. These are taken from the abstract data types
defined in Section 3.1 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102]; …
6.13.2. NEW
Description: A description of the semantics of an IPFIX Information
Element. These are taken from the data type semantics defined in
Section 3.2 of the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102];
6.14.2. NEW
Description: A description of the units of an IPFIX Information
Element. These correspond to the units implicitly defined in the
Information Element definitions in Section 5 of the IPFIX
Information Model [RFC5102];
3) RFC 9565 obsoletes RFC 7125. Please note that we changed “updates” to
“obsoletes for accuracy.
When the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) was
considering [RFC9565], which updates [RFC7125], …
Current:
When the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) was
considering [RFC9565], which obsoletes [RFC7125],
The current files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html
Diffs highlighting item 3 only:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
AUTH48 diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Comprehensive diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
> On Feb 21, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Thank you for your reviews. We have received all of the needed approvals and
> will continue with publication shortly.
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
>
>> On Feb 20, 2025, at 1:09 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Sabrina and Sandy,
>>
>> All looks good to me.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/2025 11:00 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT wrote:
>>> Hi Sandy, Paul, all,
>>>
>>> We've updated the registry to reflect the changes in the diff and fixed the
>>> typos, as noted by Paul (thank you for pointing these out):
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix
>>>
>>> Let us know if any other changes are needed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sabrina
>>>
>>> On Wed Feb 19 19:48:34 2025, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul, Sabrina, Authors,
>>>>
>>>> I removed the two instances of '(previously the "X" registry)’. I
>>>> also changed the citation tags for [RFC768] and [RFC791] (removed the
>>>> leading zeros).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also, RFC9710 is not listed in the "Reference" column for any of the
>>>>> changes. Whether that's an oversight in the RFC, or an expectation
>>>>> that IANA will automatically add it; I believe it should be listed
>>>>> against each modified element.
>>>> Rather than add a reference for each entry, I added a statement in
>>>> section 9. Please review and let us know if this addresses your
>>>> concern. Thank you for pointing out - we missed adding mention of
>>>> this change.
>>>>
>>>> The current files are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html
>>>>
>>>> Diffs highlighting only the updates described above:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastdiff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastrfcdiff.html (side by
>>>> side)
>>>>
>>>> AUTH48 diffs:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48rfcdiff.html (side
>>>> by side)
>>>>
>>>> Comprehensive diffs:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>> side)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/sg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2025, at 6:56 AM, Aitken, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sabrina, there are still some discrepancies between the RFC-to-be and
>>>>> the registry. I've checked sections 4, 5, and 7 of the RFC-to-be, but
>>>>> not yet section 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, RFC9710 is not listed in the "Reference" column for any of the
>>>>> changes. Whether that's an oversight in the RFC, or an expectation
>>>>> that IANA will automatically add it; I believe it should be listed
>>>>> against each modified element.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.1.2. NEW / sourceTransportPort
>>>>> 4.2.2. NEW / destinationTransportPort
>>>>> 4.4.2. NEW / collectorTransportPort
>>>>> 4.5.2. NEW / exporterTransportPort
>>>>> The RFC says "See [RFC0768]" while the registry says "See [RFC768]".
>>>>>
>>>>> 262 messageMD5Checksum
>>>>>
>>>>> "messageScope Information lement" should be "messageScope Information
>>>>> Element"
>>>>>
>>>>> 285 anonymizationFlags
>>>>>
>>>>> The text is correct, but the right-hand edge of the table is wonky.
>>>>>
>>>>> 340 informationElementDescription
>>>>>
>>>>> "with its ownlanguage tag" should be "with its own language tag".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> P.
>>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
