: ip...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Bitfields vs. Unsigned RE: Re: [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX
documents
Dear Joe and Med,
I updated both shepherd writeup's accordingly and adjusted to: that consensus
for introducing a new data type unsigned256 has been achieved.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Bitfields vs. Unsigned RE: Re: [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX
documents
Be aware: This is an external email.
As a co-chair, I'm willing to call consensus on this as there hasn't been any
other replies on this thread after Med asserted the reasoning for sticking with
unsigned256
As a co-chair, I’m willing to call consensus on this as there hasn’t been any
other replies on this thread after Med asserted the reasoning for sticking with
unsigned256.
I would ask Thomas as shepherd to note this in the write-up, and we can proceed
to IESG as I believe all other comments
Hi all,
As indicated in IETF#119, we suggest to tag this issue as closed and proceed
with the publication of the current versions of the various I-Ds.
Cheers,
Med
De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
Envoyé : vendredi 23 février 2024 15:55
À : 'Aitken, Paul' ; 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)'
;
Hi Paul,
Unless I'm mistaken, I didn't see any follow-up to this issue.
May I consider this point as closed? Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
Envoyé : mardi 23 janvier 2024 14:23
À : 'Aitken, Paul' ; Aitken, Paul
; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc :
Hi Paul,
> It is consistent but wrong, as the numeric value of these fields is
> meaningless. Bitfields with flags semantics don't have a meaningful
> "unsigned" value.
You raised this comment for both TCP/UDP specs.
As I mentioned in the previous message, all existing IEs of type flags are
