Dear Rebecca, Looks perfect. Thats would be all.
Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@amsl.com> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 7:09 PM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>; Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Cc: benoit.cla...@huawei.com; pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr; opsawg@ietf.org; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9487 (8020) Be aware: This is an external email. Hi Thomas, Thank you for pointing this out! I updated the errata report. Let me know if any additional changes are needed. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8020 Best regards, Rebecca for the RFC Editor > On Jul 10, 2024, at 10:55 PM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote: > > Dear Mahesh and Rebecca, > > Can we also take Carsten's feedback into account and change the first two > lines of Figure 7 to move two characters to the left. > > Then everything is perfect. > > Best wishes > Thomas > > From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 8:29 PM > To: Rebecca Vanrheenen <rvanrhee...@amsl.com> > Cc: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <thomas.g...@swisscom.com>; Benoit > Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr; > opsawg@ietf.org; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9487 (8020) > > Be aware: This is an external email. > > Hi Rebecca, > > Thanks for all the pointers. > > I have reviewed the Errata, and agree that it should be Verified. I will wait > till the EOD today to hear any objections, absent which I will go ahead and > approve it. > > Cheers. > > > On Jul 10, 2024, at 11:00 AM, Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > The RPC reviews editorial errata per a decision in 2021; if the RPC cannot > handle a particular editorial erratum, we ask the AD to review. > > We have encountered such a case with this erratum -- we consider the change > from “srhActiveSegmentIPv6” to “srhSegmentIPv6” to be above editorial. We > have thus changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review > and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > Note that Thomas (author) submitted the report, and Benoit (another author) > supports verifying it. > Seehttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/fE1FoUZRmuIOP5nS9O7DISFJYzo/. > > You may review the report at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8020 > > Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ > > Further information on errata can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > > > On Jul 6, 2024, at 6:43 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9487, "Export of > Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8020 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Thomas Graf <thomas.g...@swisscom.com> > > Section: appendix-A.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#figure-7 > > 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 = 24 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Template ID 259 | Field Count = 3 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Scope Field Count = 1 |0| srhActiveSegmentIPv6 = 495 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Scope 1 Field Length = 4 |0|srhSegmentIPv6End.Behav = 502| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Field Length = 1 |0|srhSegmentIPv6Lo.Length = 501| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Field Length = 4 | Padding | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#figure-8 > > 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 = 259 | Length = 28 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhActiveSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::1 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End [1] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhActiveSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::4 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End with NEXT-CSID [43] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhActiveSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::6 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End.DX6 [16] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#figure-7 > > 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 = 24 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Template ID 259 | Field Count = 3 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Scope Field Count = 1 |0| srhSegmentIPv6 = 494 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Scope 1 Field Length = 4 |0|srhSegmentIPv6End.Behav = 502| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Field Length = 1 |0|srhSegmentIPv6Lo.Length = 501| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Field Length = 4 | Padding | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#figure-8 > > 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 = 259 | Length = 28 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::1 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End [1] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::4 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End with NEXT-CSID [43] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | srhSegmentIPv6 = 2001:db8::6 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior |srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength= 48| > |= End.DX6 [16] | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Notes > ----- > Example in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#appendix-A.2 > should state IE494 srhSegmentIPv6 instead of IE495 > srhActiveSegmentIPv6 for mapping the IE510 srhSegmentIPv6LocatorLength > and IE502 srhSegmentIPv6EndpointBehavior in IPFIX option-template as > described inhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9487#section-6.2 > > Errata has been reported to me by a software developer of a major vendor > working on implementation. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it > will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use > "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When > a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the > status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9487 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-14) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP > Flow Information Export (IPFIX) > Publication Date : November 2023 > Author(s) : T. Graf, B. Claise, P. Francois > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Operations and Management Area Working Group > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com > > > > > > > <Mail Attachment.eml>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
