[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IPFIX] Mistake in PSAMP RFCs: Selector ID length
It looks like two errata on RFC 5478 and 5477 should be issues. I suggest that one of you takes the pen to enter the errata texts, and when they are ready and have reached consensus I can approve them.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipfix-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipfix-bounces at ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Brian Trammell
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:41 AM
> To: Gerhard Muenz
> Cc: psamp; ipfix at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Mistake in PSAMP RFCs: Selector ID length
>
> hi Benoit, Gerhard,
>
> I agree with the change to 64 bit, to keep it in line with
> every other protocol-level identifier (save odID, bound by
> the header format to 32 bits), with the understanding that
> RLE will often be used to use it as
> 32 bit.
>
> However, in this case we might want as well to update 5476
> with a line noting that all the examples use RLE.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Gerhard Muenz wrote:
>
> >
> > 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. Or is 64 a mistake?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gerhard
> >
> >> Regards, Benoit.
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --- _______________________________________________
> >> IPFIX mailing list
> >> IPFIX at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> >
> > --
> > Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Münz
> > Chair for Network Architectures and Services (I8) Technische
> > Universität München - Department of Informatics
> Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748
> > Garching bei München, Germany
> > Phone: +49 89 289-18008 Fax: +49 89 289-18033
> > E-mail: muenz at net.in.tum.de WWW: http://www.net.in.tum.de/~muenz
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPFIX mailing list
> > IPFIX at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>