Hi Benoit, all, > Dear IPFIX doctors, (IANA), > > We would like to get your feedback regarding the IANA section in > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01. > Especially, the two following information elements: > srhFlagsIPv6: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01#section-5.1 > srhSegmentEndpointBehavior: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01#section-5.11
We can keep separate registries in sync (although we don't currently have automation to ensure this), but is the intention for the IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags and IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior registries to be contained within each IPFIX IE registration's Description field? In 2020, with IE Doctor approval, all IPFIX IE Description field tables that constituted sub-registries were replaced with links to separate sub-registries located outside of the IPFIX Information Elements registry. You can see the list of sub-registries under the heading "Registries included below": https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix > I went to the IANA table in Philly and we discussed those. Hence I > copied IANA here. > In the currentdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01> > version, we created two IPFIX subregistries, which mimic existing > Segment Routing registries. > The main reason is that we are in favor of having a self contained > IPFIX > IANA registry, which we can download as a cron job in the collector. > We > discussed such a project with Michelle Cotton in the past (I know that > Michelle moved on). I'm afraid we don't have any of Michelle's notes on this topic. What will you need IANA to do? We may need to put you in touch with IANA's technical director. In the future, the registries will be moved from an XML-based to a database-based registry system. > On top of that, it might be beneficial for the > IPFIX > experts to review any changes coming from a registry we mimic, just to > see if there are no new inconsistencies from an IPFIX point of view. > > However, Med, in cc., has a valid point that the current IPFIX IANA > entries are inconsistencies already. > Ex: destinationTransportPort points to a different registry > Ex: tcpControlBit. See > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-opsawg-rfc7125- > update/ > So he advocated that we don't duplicate, with an IPFIX subregistry, > information stemming from a different source. Pointing to the existing > registry (ex: "Segment Routing Header Flags") + a RFC reference is > sufficient for him. Solving the self-contained IPFIX registry issue > would be a (too) huge job at this point in time. > > This is what we currently have in the draft: > > 5.1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01#section-5.1>. > srhFlagsIPv6 > > Name: srhFlagsIPv6 > > ElementID: TBD1 > > Description: This Information Element identifies the 8-bit flags > defined in the SRH. Values for this Information Element are > listed in the "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry, see [IANA-IPFIX > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01#ref-IANA-IPFIX>]. > srhFlagsIPv6 values must not be directly added to this "IPFIX IPv6 > SRH Flags" registry. They must instead be added to the "Segment > Routing Header Flags" registry. Both the "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" > and the "Segment Routing Header Flags" registries must be kept in > synch. Initial values in the registry are defined by the table > below. > > +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | Value | Description | Reference | > +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | 0-1 | Unassigned | | > +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | 2 | O-flag | [RFC-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-13] | > +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | 3-7 | Unassigned | | > +--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+ > > Table 2: "IPFIX IPv6 SRH Flags" registry > > > Note to IANA: Add a note to the "IPFIX SRV6 Endpoint Behavior" > registry so that new values are echoed in the new "IPFIX SRv6 > EndPoint Behavior > > Abstract Data Type: unsigned8 > > Data Type Semantics: flags > > Reference: [RFC-to-be],RFC8754 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754> > > This is what Med proposes: > > 5.1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6- > srh-01#section-5.1>. > srhFlagsIPv6 > > Name: srhFlagsIPv6 > > ElementID: TBD1 > > Description: This IE identifies the 8-bit flags defined in the SRH. > Assigned flags and their meanings are provided in the "Segment > Routing > Header Flags" registry. > > Abstract Data Type: unsigned8 > > Data Type Semantics: flags > > Reference: [RFC-to-be],RFC8754 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754> When IANA links to this registry, will the link have to point to, e.g., https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing#the-specific-registry, or would it be sufficient to point to https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing (the registry group, rather than the specific registry within it)? > We basically agree that a registry lookup is required for the IPFIX > Collector. > An IPFIX Exporter will export what he sees, regardless of the semantic > or an IANA registry. The IPFIX Collector will report a potential > problem > if the observed value is not in the IANA registry (bug, IANA entry > hijacked, another convention => if value not observed, I'll send an > error code instead, etc) > > Bottom line: we have two different ways to model the srhFlagsIPv6 and > srhSegmentEndpointBehavior in IANA, with or without an IPFIX > subregistry. > Can you share your views on the best way to register those IEs. > > Thanks and regards, Benoit thanks, Amanda Baber IANA Operations Manager _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
