Hi Benoit, A few IANA notes about version draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-12:
1) Section 3.1 says, "All column entries besides the Identifier, Name, URI, Description, Output, and Reference Method categories are the same," but it looks like "Output and Reference Method" should be replaced with something like "Reference Description (Output only)." "Reference Method" is only a sentence long, and "Reference Description" appears to be the only subsection under "Output" that has different text for different registrations. 2) The Reference field that RFC 8911 (Section 7.1.5) places between the Description and Change Controller appears to be missing. 3) It's not totally clear (to IANA) what the Reference Description from the Output subsection would look like in the registry. Would we remove "For all output types:" and "For each <statistic> Singleton one of the following subsections applies" from Section 3.4.2, and then include only the text of the relevant subsection, but without a subsection number and title? thanks, Amanda On Sat Aug 24 17:21:00 2024, benoit.cla...@huawei.com wrote: > Amanda, > > [reduced distribution) > We posted v11, with the changes discussed at the last IETF. > Can you please double-check and reply to the OPSAWG mailer for > visibility. > > Regards, Benoit > > On 7/24/2024 10:33 PM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > > Hi Benoit, all, > > > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on- > >>> path-telemetry-08 > >>> > >>> About Section 6.1: Should IANA separate the template in Section 3 > >>> into four separate templates, with information about the other > >>> registrations removed from each, or can the same template be reused > >>> four times? > >> We actually followed the example in RFC8912 > > OK. We'll separate them out and then ask you to confirm before > > posting. > > > >>> About Section 6.2: Should any of the information earmarked for the > >>> “Reference” field be moved to the registry's “Additional > >>> Information” > >>> field? For examples, please see > >>> > >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix > >> That one is an important convention to agree upon early (this is the > >> first perf. metric IPFIX IE) > >> Let's take an example: 6.2.1. PathDelayMeanDeltaMicroseconds > >> > >> Right now: > >> > >> Reference: [RFC-to-be], OWDelay_HybridType1_Passive_IP_RFC[RFC-to- > >> be]_Seconds_Mean in the IANA Performance Metric Registry. > >> > >> Your proposal > >> > >> Reference: [RFC-to-be], > >> > >> Additonal Information: OWDelay_HybridType1_Passive_IP_RFC[RFC-to- > >> be]_Seconds_Mean in the IANA Performance Metric Registry. > >> > >> Your proposal would make sense in light > >> ofhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes/ , > >> which says: > >> > >> As discussed with IANA during the publication process of [RFC9487], > >> the "Additional Information" entry in [IANA-IPFIX] should contain a > >> link to an existing registry, when applicable, as opposed to having > >> > >> Here is the key question: Since we have two registries as reference, > >> should we put them in "Reference"? > >> Or only use the IPFIX regisry information in the "Reference"? > >> > >> As I mentioned, this is "just" a convention IMO. > >> Unless someone on the list has strong views, I propose that you, > >> IANA, > >> states the convention you want. > > We would prefer that registries appear in the "Additional > > Information" field and documents in the "Reference" field, as long as > > an "Additional Information" field is available. > > > > Apologies for the late response! > > > > thanks, > > Amanda > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
