Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Hi Paul, On 1/23/2024 12:14 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:     4.3. forwardingStatus     In particular, the registered Abstract    Data Type is unsigned8, while it must be unsigned32. Why must it be? */[Med] As per the definition in RFC7270./* I've opened an er

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Hi Benoit, I see your point about not having an errata on a Cisco RFC. That being said…. It appears that the IANA page has listed forwardingStatus(89) as unsigned8 since 2018. Also CCO-NF9FMT,

Re: [OPSAWG] [IPFIX] errata eid7775 RE: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: WG LC: IPFIX documents

Hi Andrew, What the document dated from 2011 mentions does not matter too much. What is key is the Cisco internal document that contains the Cisco IPFIX registry. So when I wrote " I don't feel comfortable having an errata on a Cisco-specific IPFIX", I actually meant: " I don't feel comfortable