Subject: [IPFIX] RFC5101bis revision

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:40:12 +0100

Greetings, all,

Thanks to all for the comments on 5101bis; I'll be pulling these together and putting out a -04 revision, hopefully early next week, including all of the indicated edits for which discussion doesn't appear necessary, or for which text needs to be generated for further discussion.

Given that there's at least one discussion that will lead to a semantic change in 5101bis -- namely, handling wraparound and eras explicitly in the timestamp data types -- I presume the resulting revision will require another WGLC.

Thanks again, best regards,

Brian

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:27:56 +0000

Hi Brian,

Let's see the changes first.  If it is just this one semantical change, we
can also ask explicitly for agreement on this update on the mailing list.

Thanks,
    Juergen

On 11.12.12 14:40, "Brian Trammell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Greetings, all,
>
>Thanks to all for the comments on 5101bis; I'll be pulling these together
>and putting out a -04 revision, hopefully early next week, including all
>of the indicated edits for which discussion doesn't appear necessary, or
>for which text needs to be generated for further discussion.
>
>Given that there's at least one discussion that will lead to a semantic
>change in 5101bis -- namely, handling wraparound and eras explicitly in
>the timestamp data types -- I presume the resulting revision will require
>another WGLC.
>
>_______________________________________________
>IPFIX mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:32:02 +0100

hi Juergen,

Okay, even better. Again, I haven't had a chance to do a full review of the reviews yet; I'll post on this next week.

Thanks, cheers,

Brian