Hi Paul, On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
While you and I were working on NetFlow at Cisco when we wrote the RFC 7270, I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX. Anyway, what is the issue with keeping unsigned32, should we be liberal in what we accept? And we know that the reduced-size encoding (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011.html#section-6.2) will be used anyway. It's not even useful to have this sentence (" IPFIX reduced-size encoding is used as required") in the description but I can live with it.4.3. forwardingStatus In particular, the registered Abstract Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32. Why must it be? */[Med] As per the definition in RFC7270./* I've opened an errata for that: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7775*/[Med] I don’ think an erratum applies here because the intent of 7270 is clearly unsigned32:/*
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
