Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03
Hi Tommy, Thanks for clarifying. You have a valid point. Updated the type to point to unsigned256, which is now defined in draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Tommy Pauly > Envoyé : lundi 15 janvier 2024 15:06 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : tsv-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp- > ipfix@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : Re: Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp- > ipfix-03 > > Hi Med, > > I understand that fewer bits are needed in practice, and RFC 7011 > would allow a field defined as an unsigned64 to be sent as fewer > bits on the wire. However, for the IANA registration, I still > would expect this field to match the existing fields and not have > a unique type just called “unsigned”. > > Tommy > > > On Jan 15, 2024, at 12:32 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > wrote: > > > > Hi Tommy, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > The encoding should allow to export the full 256 range, but it > is likely that fewer bits will be needed. unsigned32/unsigned64 > are provided as examples to illustrate the use of reduced > encoding > (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc7011%23section- > 6.2=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C923c03240dcb4 > 5e404ff08dc15d33104%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C > 638409244003749283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC > JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C > a=LZOS7V39SarOBVwo6FTdrjc8HQcv3DZdgztKHqORNWU%3D=0). > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -Message d'origine- > >> De : Tommy Pauly via Datatracker Envoyé : > mardi 2 > >> janvier 2024 18:08 À : tsv-...@ietf.org Cc : > >> draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix@ietf.org; > >> opsawg@ietf.org > >> Objet : Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp- > ipfix- > >> 03 > >> > >> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly > >> Review result: Almost Ready > >> > >> Thanks for writing a clear and succinct draft. I only found > one issue > >> of note, around the registration of the new udpOptions > Information > >> Element. > >> > >> Section 4.1: > >> The data type used for the "udpOptions" entry is just listed > as > >> "unsigned", and is described as being either an unsigned32 or > an > >> unsigned64. However, when I look at the registry at > >> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > >> > Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipfix%2Fipfix.xhtml=05%7C02%7C > >> > mohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4cadeee208dc0bbf > >> > %7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638398120645105476% > >> > 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT > >> > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=P9pWAnW5VI1SzmRx4 > >> Q%2FB2wOa3rsve1uOdsRm%2BMNB4%2B0%3D=0, I don't see > any > >> entries that use this abstract "unsigned" type, and it is not > listed > >> as an option in the element data types. Is there a reason this > >> shouldn't just be registered as an unsigned64? My > understanding from > >> > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > >> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7011%23section- > >> > 6.2=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4 > >> > cadeee208dc0bbf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C > >> > 638398120645105476%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC > >> > JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C > >> a=1FvKZv60OgONy5w%2BygO9sSnBN121J9yveL7Gkv15apI%3D=0 > is that > >> an unsigned64 can be automatically encoded as an unsigned32 if > the > >> value is small enough, so the definition can just use > unsigned64. > >> > > > > > _ > _ > > __ > > 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. > > &g
Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03
Hi Med, I understand that fewer bits are needed in practice, and RFC 7011 would allow a field defined as an unsigned64 to be sent as fewer bits on the wire. However, for the IANA registration, I still would expect this field to match the existing fields and not have a unique type just called “unsigned”. Tommy > On Jan 15, 2024, at 12:32 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Tommy, > > Thank you for the review. > > The encoding should allow to export the full 256 range, but it is likely that > fewer bits will be needed. unsigned32/unsigned64 are provided as examples to > illustrate the use of reduced encoding > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-6.2). > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De : Tommy Pauly via Datatracker >> Envoyé : mardi 2 janvier 2024 18:08 >> À : tsv-...@ietf.org >> Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix....@ietf.org; >> opsawg@ietf.org >> Objet : Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix- >> 03 >> >> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> Thanks for writing a clear and succinct draft. I only found one >> issue of note, around the registration of the new udpOptions >> Information Element. >> >> Section 4.1: >> The data type used for the "udpOptions" entry is just listed as >> "unsigned", and is described as being either an unsigned32 or an >> unsigned64. However, when I look at the registry at >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipfix%2Fipfix.xhtml=05%7C02%7C >> mohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4cadeee208dc0bbf >> %7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638398120645105476% >> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT >> iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=P9pWAnW5VI1SzmRx4 >> Q%2FB2wOa3rsve1uOdsRm%2BMNB4%2B0%3D=0, I don't see any >> entries that use this abstract "unsigned" type, and it is not >> listed as an option in the element data types. Is there a reason >> this shouldn't just be registered as an unsigned64? My >> understanding from >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7011%23section- >> 6.2=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4 >> cadeee208dc0bbf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C >> 638398120645105476%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC >> JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C >> a=1FvKZv60OgONy5w%2BygO9sSnBN121J9yveL7Gkv15apI%3D=0 is >> that an unsigned64 can be automatically encoded as an unsigned32 >> if the value is small enough, so the definition can just use >> unsigned64. >> > > > 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
Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03
Hi Tommy, Thank you for the review. The encoding should allow to export the full 256 range, but it is likely that fewer bits will be needed. unsigned32/unsigned64 are provided as examples to illustrate the use of reduced encoding (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7011#section-6.2). Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Tommy Pauly via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 2 janvier 2024 18:08 > À : tsv-...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix- > 03 > > Reviewer: Tommy Pauly > Review result: Almost Ready > > Thanks for writing a clear and succinct draft. I only found one > issue of note, around the registration of the new udpOptions > Information Element. > > Section 4.1: > The data type used for the "udpOptions" entry is just listed as > "unsigned", and is described as being either an unsigned32 or an > unsigned64. However, when I look at the registry at > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fipfix%2Fipfix.xhtml=05%7C02%7C > mohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4cadeee208dc0bbf > %7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638398120645105476% > 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT > iI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=P9pWAnW5VI1SzmRx4 > Q%2FB2wOa3rsve1uOdsRm%2BMNB4%2B0%3D=0, I don't see any > entries that use this abstract "unsigned" type, and it is not > listed as an option in the element data types. Is there a reason > this shouldn't just be registered as an unsigned64? My > understanding from > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7011%23section- > 6.2=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C7a23dc00f97a4 > cadeee208dc0bbf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C > 638398120645105476%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC > JQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C > a=1FvKZv60OgONy5w%2BygO9sSnBN121J9yveL7Gkv15apI%3D=0 is > that an unsigned64 can be automatically encoded as an unsigned32 > if the value is small enough, so the definition can just use > unsigned64. > 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
[OPSAWG] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-03
Reviewer: Tommy Pauly Review result: Almost Ready Thanks for writing a clear and succinct draft. I only found one issue of note, around the registration of the new udpOptions Information Element. Section 4.1: The data type used for the “udpOptions” entry is just listed as “unsigned”, and is described as being either an unsigned32 or an unsigned64. However, when I look at the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml, I don’t see any entries that use this abstract “unsigned” type, and it is not listed as an option in the element data types. Is there a reason this shouldn’t just be registered as an unsigned64? My understanding from https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011#section-6.2 is that an unsigned64 can be automatically encoded as an unsigned32 if the value is small enough, so the definition can just use unsigned64. ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
