[babel] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8966 (7373)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 30 October 2024 14:10 UTC

To: dxld@darkboxed.org, jch@irif.fr, dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20241030141047.1F6547F9E0@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:10:47 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: X5PIOLRZTZGSBXAVEUSBZTNMJE2BCUHH
CC: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [babel] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8966 (7373)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/dN4dDAI1LOBjD6islYVI7l8J7ns>

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC8966, "The Babel Routing Protocol". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7373

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org>
Date Reported: 2023-02-27
Held by: Gunter Van de Velde (IESG)

Section: 3.8.2.2.

Original Text
-------------
Additionally, since metric computation does not necessarily coincide
with the delay in propagating updates, a node might receive an
unfeasible update from a currently unselected neighbour that is
preferable to the currently selected route (e.g., because it has a
much smaller metric); in that case, the node SHOULD send a unicast
seqno request to the neighbour that advertised the preferable update.


Corrected Text
--------------
Additionally, since metric computation does not necessarily coincide
with the delay in propagating updates, a node might receive an
unfeasible update from a currently unselected neighbour that would
lead to the received route becoming selected were it feasible. In that
case, the node SHOULD send a unicast seqno request to the neighbour
that advertised the preferable update.


Notes
-----
As currently written the text does not recommend sending a seqno request when no route is currently selected because ".. that is preferable to the currently selected route" implies a selected route as a precondition.

We recommend reinstating some of the RFC6126 wording instead. (Thanks to Juliusz for pointing this out)

--------------------------------------
RFC8966 (draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-20)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Babel Routing Protocol
Publication Date    : January 2021
Author(s)           : J. Chroboczek, D. Schinazi
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Babel routing protocol
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[babel] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8966… RFC Errata System