Dear all,
It goes without saying that I agree with Med here.
Regards, Benoit
On 7/11/2024 7:58 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Mahesh,
An implementer that looks in 5102 will be forwarded to 7012 because
there is appropriate metadata in 5102 that says that spec is
superseded/obsoleted by 7012. Like any other RFC with that metadata,
there is no note that explicits which aspects is obsoleted (or updated
in case of updated-by). Readers have to look into 7012 which clearly
and explicitly list the changes and how the registry should be handled
in the future.
I never saw an update to an obsoleted RFC. IMO, it does not make sense
to go that way.
We can add a note with a summary to help readers navigate with all these.
Cheers,
Med
*De :* Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>
*Envoyé :* jeudi 11 juillet 2024 18:27
*À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
*Cc :* Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs
<opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org
*Objet :* Re: [OPSAWG]Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Med,
This DISCUSS and the COMMENT from John came up again in the telechat
earlier today.
This is clearly tripped up more than one person in their review
process, so it is quite imaginable what it would do to an implementor.
I do not have a good solution, and I am hoping this discussion comes
up with a solution that is better than status quo.
On Jul 10, 2024, at 11:14 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Paul,
I have already clarified this point in a reply to John's comment.
Let me clarify again:
* Both ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions were initially defined
in RFC 5102
* RFC 7012 obsoleted RFC 5102 and declared that:
## The IANA registry is for now the authoritative reference for
these IEs:
"[IANA-IPFIX] is now the normative reference for IPFIX Information
Elements. When [RFC5102] was published, it defined, in its
Section 5, the initial contents of that registry."
## RFC 5102 provides the initial content of the registry
"This information model is maintained as the IANA "IPFIX
Information Elements" registry, the initial contents of which were
defined by RFC 5102."
or
"The IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [IANA-IPFIX] is the
current complete reference for IPFIX Information Elements. The
initial values for this registry were provided by [RFC5102]."
The move to an IANA registry as the authoritative reference for the
IEs is clearly the source of the problem. Is there something in the
Updates to RFC 5102 that indicates that the registry has moved to
IANA? Or do folks have to read RFC 7012 to realize that? Would the
registry pointing to RFC 5102, which would in turn point to RFC 7012 help?
* We can't update 7012 because:
"Information Element definitions have been removed, as the reference
for these is now [IANA-IPFIX]; a historical note on
categorizations
of Information Elements as defined in [RFC5102] has been retained
in Section 5."
This is the reason we:
* cite [IANA-IPFIX] when we first mentioned ipv6ExtensionHeaders
and tcpOptions in the doc.
* list [IANA-IPFIX] as normative
But that may not be enough to satisfy the question that Paul is
asking. Which RFC is being updated/obsoleted with the move to
deprecate the ipv6ExtensionHeaders and tcpOptions IE. Does it make
sense to update RFC 5102 so folks know to reference this document,
even if it is obsoleted by RFC 7102?
Cheers
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Envoyé : jeudi 11 juillet 2024 03:48
À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v...@ietf.org; opsawg-
cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com;
thomas.g...@swisscom.com
Objet : Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-
v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS)
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-17: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This specification deprecates the ipv6ExtensionHeaders
IPFIX IE
in favor of the new IEs defined in this document.
I don't see which RFC those were in, because this document does
not
Update: or Obsolete: the RFC that defined the
ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE
This specification deprecates the tcpOptions IE
Same here.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
