Reviewer: Joseph Touch Review result: Ready with Issues Note that I previously performed an INTAREA early review on Jan 12, 2024.
This document sufficiently addresses the issues previously raised, with the exception below. It introduces no new concerns. The sole remaining issue is the use of "unsigned256" as a data type. This is necessary to represent the potential bitfield to support all 256 possible UDP option Kind values. This document cites draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh as defining this type (in Sec 8.3). That (tcpo-v6eh) document defines the range of this type correctly, but then refers back to RFC7011 Sec 6.1.1 to define the encoding. Unfortunately, RFC7011 defines encodings for unsigned integers only up to 64 bits. This (udp-ipfix) document cites Section 6.2 of RFC7011 to define reduced size encodings of unsigned256, but RFC7011 defines those encodings only for 64, 32, and 16 bit unsigned integers. Additionally, those reductions apply only when the high-order byte(s) are all zero; for UDP options, the partitioning of options into SAFE and UNSAFE groups and the assignment of experiment codepoints to the highest values in both ranges suggests that these reduced size encodings may be of limited relevance. At least one document needs to define unsigned256 normatively - this doc, tcpo-v6eh, or some other. That document needs to explain the byte order representation and reduced size encoding. This (udp-fix) document also uses the octetArray type, but then defines it as being interpreted as "16-bit fields" (Sec 4.2, 4.3). This should probably refer to unsigned16 values, but it's not clear that this is a valid use of octetArrays. Being able to read such an array as unsigned16 values may require half-word (16bit) or word (32bit) alignment, such that reading an unsigned16 from a misaligned offset may either result in an error or a misinterpreted (byte-swapped) value. Please provide an example of use of an octetArray as a list of multi-octet values in a published RFC or provide an alternate representation (or define one in detail). Some additional minor suggestions: Note that the "ex" in ExID already means "experimental option". It thus may be useful to consider shortening the name of the related two element IDs, e.g., reducing udpUnsafeExperimentalOptionExID to udpUnsafeExID and reducing udpSafeExperimentalOptionExID to udpSafeExID. Fig 2 shows the full unsigned256 field, but it is not clear why this is useful if the reduced length variant is sufficient. It might be useful to show just the appropriate byte. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
