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 descr
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).
C
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 “u
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
