* 3. UDP Options at a Glance
Add "to" :
e.g., to discover a path MTU or share timestamps
* 4. New UDP IPFIX Information Elements
The URLs in the "note" should be listed in the references. The note should say
"to be updated / removed by the RFC editor".
* 4.2. and 4.3. / Description
The information is encoded in a set of 16-bit fields. Each 16-bit
field carries the observed ExID in an EXP option.
I mis-parsed this as if each 16-bit field carries an EXP option: "Each 16-bit
field carries the observed ExID / in an EXP option."
It may be clearer as, "Each 16-bit field carries the ExID which was observed in
an EXP option."
* 4.2. and 4.3.
No mention is made of whether ordering is important or unimportant.
* 5. Examples
Add "a":
If a udpOptions IE is exported for this Flow,
* Under Figure 2:
Let us now consider a UDP Flow in which both SAFE and UNSAFE
Experimental options are observed. Let us also consider that the
observed SAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0x9858 and
0xE2D4, and UNSAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0xC3D9 and
0x9858.
The last 0x9858 should be 0x9658 to correspond with the following point 2 and
Figure 4.
0x9858 and 0x9658 are very similar. Could more distinct values be used?
* Figure 3:
If udpOptions IE is exported for this Flow, then that IE will
have bits in positions 127 (EXP) and 254 (UEXP) set to 1 (Figure
3<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix#ex-udp-shared>).
The goal is to set bits 127 and 254, so it's confusing to see what appears to
be bits 1 and 128 set:
MSB LSB
12 25
0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|1|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Intuitively one would expect to see these bits:
MSB LSB
12 25
0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|X|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X|X| |X|X|X|X|X|1|X|
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
However since bit 2^n is set for option n, the problem is really with the
misleading bit numbering in the figure.
ie, the example would be clearer without the numbering.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
