Hi Joe, TCP-FLAGS is listed as normative as this is the authoritative reference for interpreting the flags by the collector, not RFC9293. I agree that RFC9293 would be sufficient for the exporter though.
Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> De la part de Joe Clarke (jclarke) Envoyé : lundi 8 mai 2023 19:08 À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update I am working on the shepherd write-up for this document and saw that Paul and Brian were not included in the IPR poll (and they are named contributors). I’ve sent them an email, but it seems Brian’s email has changed since 7125. Does anyone have his current email? I have reviewed the document (-03) and the IDNITS. The document text looks okay. Most of the IDNITS are false positives (Benoît, when is your name going to comply to ASCII 😊 ?). Does the TCP-FLAGS registry need to be normative for this document? Should this be informative since 9293 is already normative? Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 18:49 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>>, opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update I have concluded the WG LC for this document. We got two directorate reviews in, and it sounds like the authors will make one more revision. While I was hoping we’d get a shepherd volunteer, I didn’t hear from anyone. I will shepherd this document and try to have the write-up done by middle of next week. Joe From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 18:13 To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update Again, sorry for the delay. I’m just back to the office, and I’m catching up on things. I’ve pushed for some other directorate reviews, but given that we want to progress this document, I’m happy to work in parallel with those. I didn’t get any offers to shepherd, though. I’ll ask once more to see if anyone in the WG is interested? This is a good, short draft to cut one’s teeth on… Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 16:01 To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> Subject: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update Hello, WG. I hope everyone that traveled for 116 is back home and healthy. One of the items that came out of the 116 meeting was that this document is in decent shape for a WGLC. We wanted to move these IPFIX maintenance documents through the process rather quickly. One of the open questions Med asked of the WG (and chairs) is should this be a bis. As a chair, I think a bis is cleaner here, but I would like to hear from the WG during this LC if that makes sense. We will run a two week WG LC ending on April 18, 2023. Please provide your comments on list. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update/ Joe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
