Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)

Hi Magnus, all,

I do agree with rejecting the errata (rather that hold for document update). 

IMO, there is no confusion under the assumption of Section 3.3 ("internal IPv6 nodes are addressed using IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses"). May be you may consider updating the "verifier note" to point to that part. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 17 février 2020 16:51
> À : huitema@huitema.net; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN;
> ietf@kuehlewind.net
> Cc : jordi.palet@theipv6company.com; dthaler@microsoft.com;
> behave@ietf.org; congxiao@cernet.edu.cn; xing@cernet.edu.cn;
> marcelo@it.uc3m.es; dwing@cisco.com; huitema@microsoft.com;
> mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
> Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have already rejected it on the grounds that what is proposed is not
> something
> unclear or that gets wrongly interpreted of what is intended. The
> proposed
> behavior appears to me also to be within what is allowed by the
> specification.
> So it is really only a proposal for further guidance. Something that
> may be
> relevant, but only if a new version of the document is defined. Maybe
> this
> should be changed for Hold for document update.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 13:46 +0100, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree that this is probably not an errata. However, we could mark
> this as
> > “Hold for next Document Update”? I guess if there every will be an
> update,
> > this need further discussion, however, having it in the errata
> system can help
> > to remember it. Or do think people it should just be rejected for
> now?
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 17. Feb 2020, at 10:43, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <
> > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > One further comment: the assumption we have for "stateless
> translation" is
> > > as follows
> > >
> > >   In these deployments, internal IPv6 nodes are addressed
> > >   using IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses, which enable them to be
> > >   accessed by IPv4 nodes.
> > >
> > > I don't see any issue with the current text under such assumption.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Behave [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> Christian
> > > > Huitema
> > > > Envoyé : dimanche 16 février 2020 21:05
> > > > À : RFC Errata System; congxiao@cernet.edu.cn;
> huitema@microsoft.com;
> > > > marcelo@it.uc3m.es; mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com;
> > > > xing@cernet.edu.cn; ietf@kuehlewind.net;
> > > > magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; dwing@cisco.com;
> dthaler@microsoft.com
> > > > Cc : jordi.palet@theipv6company.com; behave@ietf.org
> > > > Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
> > > >
> > > > Jordi,
> > > >
> > > > The errata process is not the right way to handle this issue.
> You are
> > > > asking for a change in the specification, and such changes
> should go
> > > > through the working group, as part of a standard discussion.
> > > >
> > > > To go to the specific technical point: it is indeed completely
> doable
> > > > to
> > > > use the same /64 prefix for a local subnet and for a NAT
> service. The
> > > > only requirement is that the NAT be capable to distinguishing
> between
> > > > a
> > > > translated address and a local address, and that requirement is
> > > > implicit
> > > > in RFC6502. For example, the NAT could reserve
> <64bit>:dead:beef::/96
> > > > for the 6to4 service, and use DUD to defend against hosts
> configuring
> > > > an
> > > > address in the same /64 prefix. That may not be a perfect
> solution,
> > > > but
> > > > that's something the working group should discuss, not something
> to be
> > > > handled summarily through the errata process.
> > > >
> > > > -- Christian Huitema
> > > >
> > > > On 2/15/2020 7:35 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6052,
> > > > > "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators".
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > You may review the report below and at:
> > > > >
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=244c0d64-7898013a-244c4dff-
> 8691959ed9b7-c65f53b92dad5084&q=1&e=f4738ef5-d2a3-4f09-87e8-
> 099582e1d0ef&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid5984
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > Type: Technical
> > > > > Reported by: Jordi Palet Martinez
> <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Section: 3.3
> > > > >
> > > > > Original Text
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD
> > > >
> > > > assign a Network-Specific Prefix to their IPv4/IPv6 translation
> > > > service.
> > > > >
> > > > > Corrected Text
> > > > > --------------
> > > > > Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD
> > > >
> > > > assign a Network-Specific Prefix for the exclusive use of their
> > > > IPv4/IPv6 translation service.
> > > > >
> > > > > Notes
> > > > > -----
> > > > > This seems obvious but is not. The NSP must only be used for
> the
> > > >
> > > > translation service. If the NSP is used only, for example in an
> > > > enterprise network, in the LANs, and the translator allows it,
> it may
> > > > create conflicts, as the resulting IPv6 address (NSP+IPv4
> address) may
> > > > be the same as a host inside the LAN has been configured with
> (either
> > > > manually, or with SLAAC, DHCPv6), etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been confirmed that at least one vendor already
> realized this
> > > >
> > > > and the implementation doesn't work if the prefix is used both
> for the
> > > > translator service and one of the LANs, but there is no explicit
> > > > documentation on that. So if configured, the box doesn't work,
> but
> > > > doesn't report is an an "invalid" config.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instructions:
> > > > > -------------
> > > > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
> please
> > > > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > > > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> > > > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if
> necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > RFC6052 (draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10)
> > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > Title               : IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
> > > > > Publication Date    : October 2010
> > > > > Author(s)           : C. Bao, C. Huitema, M. Bagnulo, M.
> Boucadair,
> > > >
> > > > X. Li
> > > > > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > > > > Source              : Behavior Engineering for Hindrance
> Avoidance
> > > > > Area                : Transport
> > > > > Stream              : IETF
> > > > > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Behave mailing list
> > > > > Behave@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Behave mailing list
> > > > Behave@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> >
> >
> --
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 