Hi all, The changes to address Roman's DISCUSS and COMMENTs from Zahed and Erik are now published: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18.
Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Envoyé : mercredi 10 juillet 2024 08:18 > À : 'Roman Danyliw' <r...@cert.org>; 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 > Objet : RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > tcpo-v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Re-, > > Thanks for the comments, Roman. > > Made these changes: https://github.com/boucadair/ipfix- > tcpoptions-and- > v6eh/commit/f38933e4cae3fe88f09aacca285b3ed7b95ba635 > > The reasoning is the same as in the UDP spec. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Envoyé : > mardi 9 > > juillet 2024 21:13 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 : Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix- > tcpo- > > v6eh-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > Roman Danyliw 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: > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > ** Section 8.2. This section is under-specified and contains > typos > > relevant to registration. > > > > -- The "IPFIX Information Elements" registry doesn't have a > "Value" > > field. It is "ElementID" > > > > -- The mandatory elements of the "IPFIX Information Elements" > > registry defined > > in the registration template of Section 2.1 of RFC7012 are > missing - > > description, datatype, and status. I appreciate that the first > two in > > this list are found in their respective sections. However, > there is > > no guidance to IANA to extract those values as such. > > > > -- Per the Reference field value, is a section number > permitted? > > No other > > current entry in this registry includes a section number. The > > definition of references from RFC7012 doesn't seem to account > for it > > either -- "reference - Identifies additional specifications > that more > > precisely define this item or provide additional context for > its use." > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
