Re: [IPFIX] Mistake in PSAMP RFCs: Selector ID length

[Benoit Claise <bclaise at cisco.com>]

Gerhard,
> Benoit,
>
> Benoit Claise wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We found a mistake in the PSAMP RFCs.
> >
> > RFC5477
> >
> >
> >             8.1.2. selectorId
> >
> >
> >
> >        Description:
> >
> >           The Selector ID is the unique ID identifying a Primitive 
> > Selector.
> >           Each Primitive Selector must have a unique ID in the 
> > Observation
> >           Domain.
> >
> >        Abstract Data Type:  unsigned16                  
> > <------------------
> >
> >        Data Type Semantics:  identifier
> >
> >        ElementId:  302
> >
> >        Status:  current
> >      
> >
> >
> > RFC5476, the selectorID length is 4 bytes in ALL examples (and there 
> > are many).
> >
> >    IPFIX Options Template Record:
> >
> >        0                   1                   2                   3
> >        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |          Set ID = 3           |          Length = 26          |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |        Template ID = 262      |         Field Count = 4       |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |     Scope Field Count =  1    |0|  selectionSequenceId = 301  |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |       Scope 1 Length = 4      |0|     ingressInterface = 10   |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |        Field Length = 4       |0|      selectorId = 302       |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |        Field Length = 4       |0|      selectorId = 302       |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >       |        Field Length = 4       |
> >       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >
> > The proposed solution is to increase the Selector ID length and put 
> > an ERRATA on RFC5477.
> > 16 bits is definitely not enough and clearly not was intended. Since 
> > we can do reduced length encoding with larger identifiers, we don't 
> > see any harm in making all identifiers 64 bit
> >
> > Feedback?
>
> 4 Bytes = 32 Bit
>
> You propose to increase it to 64 (=8 Byte), which means that both RFCs 
> need to be corrected. 
Not really since the examples can use reduced length encoding.
Since we have to change it (at least this is the proposed solution), why 
not going directly to 64 bits?

Regards, Benoit.
> Or is 64 a mistake?
>
> Regards,
> Gerhard
>
> > Regards, Benoit.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPFIX mailing list
> > IPFIX at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix