Hi Sabrina,
On 2/19/2025 1:40 AM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT wrote:
Hi Sandy, all,
Just following up on this. Are we removing the following text from the
Description field for 339 and 345?
For 339 informationElementDataType:
"(previously the 'informationElementDataType' registry)"
For 345 informationElementUnits:
"(previously the 'informationElementDataType' registry)"
"These types are registered in the [IANA IPFIX Information Element Units]
subregistry."
Please let us know if these removals are correct or if any other changes are
required.
This is correct to me.
Regards, Benoit
Thanks,
Sabrina
On Mon Feb 17 13:30:39 2025, benoit.cla...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Sandy,
Your proposal works for me.
Regards, Benoit
On 2/15/2025 12:54 AM, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Hi Paul, Authors,
Thanks for checking in!
On Feb 10, 2025, at 1:54 PM, Aitken, Paul <pait...@ciena.com> wrote:
1. Has IANA updated the registries from the RFC-to-be? It looks like
updates from section 4 have already been applied, but the updates in
sections 5 and 6 have not.
IANA has now completed the updates.
2. In 6.12.2., is this bracket useful? "(previously the
"informationElementDataType" registry)". Same in 6.14.2:
"(previously the "informationElementsUnits" registry)". The previous
name is really only relevant if the reader has an old pointer using
that name.
I had a tough time following the OLD/NEW text without understanding
the registry names. I find it beneficial to clearly document the
change for the reader, though I can see how it may not be helpful for
the registry text itself.
Perhaps we could add a note to Section 6.12.
informationElementDataType?
Original:
6.12. informationElementDataType
Perhaps:
6.12. informationElementDataType
Note that the "informationElementDataType” registry is renamed as the
"IPFIX Information Element Data Types” registry.
Then we would remove the following from the NEW text:
(previously the "informationElementDataType" registry)
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
P.
On 10/02/25 18:28, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Hi IANA,
We have updated the NEW text to refer to registry names with a
[URL] to the registry group per our earlier discussion. Please
review and update the related registries and let us know if you
have any questions.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XmTHugKQ$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8V50RN3BA$
[rfc-editor[.]org] (side-by-side view)
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
On Feb 6, 2025, at 9:53 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-
editor.org>
wrote:
Thanks for your quick reply, Benoit. Your approval has been noted
and we will continue with publication shortly.
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
On Feb 6, 2025, at 9:44 AM, Benoit Claise
<benoit.cla...@huawei.com>
wrote:
Approved.
Thanks, Benoit
On 2/6/2025 6:32 PM, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Hi Med, Benoit,
Med, thanks for catching those mistaken updates in the OLD text
- they have been reverted. With this update, we believe you
approve the RFC for publication, so we have noted your approval
on the AUTH48 page
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/auth48/rfc9710__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XELp8zlQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org]>
.
Related to “subregistry” - we have all instances of “sub” in the
NEW text.
Benoit, please review and let us know if any additional updates
are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication.
The current files are available here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XfXZvLMw$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XamMk7xA$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8VX7Jehxg$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8VXbGZwhw$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
Diffs showing most recent updates only:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8WOWfhmrw$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8VmaAOzbw$
[rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side)
AUTH48 diffs:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8W82u381g$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8UQq_-RHA$
[rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side)
Comprehensive diffs:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XmTHugKQ$
[rfc-editor[.]org]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8V50RN3BA$
[rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side)
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
wrote:
Re-,
The except below is about 6.12.2, not 6.12.1 ;-)
It is better to use the full diff to see the change I was
referring to:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-
ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-
5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-
NJ8XmTHugKQ$
[rfc-editor[.]org].
For subregistry/registry comment, I thought we are OK given
that this was prefixed with “previously”.
That’s said I agree with you that the use in the registry
should be consistent. There shouldn’t be any occurrence of
“subregistry” when the changes in RFC9710 are implemented.
Cheers,
Med
De : Benoit Claise
<benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2025 10:45
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Sandy Ginoza
<sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
Cc : RFC Editor
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; i...@iana.org; opsawg-
a...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com;
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>;
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org; pait...@ciena.com; me
<benoit.cla...@huawei.com>
Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9710 <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-
fixes-12> for your review
Dear all, Med,
On 2/6/2025 8:03 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
wrote:
Hi Sandy, all,
Thank you for taking care of this.
ACK to remove the note for item 9.
The latest changes look great, except the ones made to "7.3.1
": these should be reverted back as that text echoes what was
changed. BTW, a similar revert back is needed to Section
6.12.1.
Which change(s) exactly in 6.12.1?
<image001.png>
In this document, there is a consistent change from subregistry
to registry, so I guess we don't want to go back to this.
Btw, IANA, I still see a subregistry instance in the NEW text
in section 6.14.2. That's mistake, right?
Regards, Benoit
Assuming these changes are implemented, I approve the
publication of the document.
Cheers,
Med
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si
vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages
that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
