[BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5415)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 01 July 2018 13:45 UTC

To: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn, huitema@microsoft.com, marcelo@it.uc3m.es, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, xing@cernet.edu.cn, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, ietf@kuehlewind.net, dwing@cisco.com, dthaler@microsoft.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: worley@ariadne.com, behave@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180701134549.0E7B2B80CCA@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 06:45:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/tlztngSlrpIs6Gk7QfRuJ-nppnk>
Subject: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5415)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6052,
"IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5415

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>

Section: 2.2

Original Text
-------------
Bits 64 to 71 of the address are reserved for compatibility with the
host identifier format defined in the IPv6 addressing architecture
[RFC4291]. These bits MUST be set to zero. When using a /96
Network-Specific Prefix, the administrators MUST ensure that the bits
64 to 71 are set to zero. A simple way to achieve that is to
construct the /96 Network-Specific Prefix by picking a /64 prefix,
and then adding 4 octets set to zero.

[and other parts of the text]

Corrected Text
--------------
[This paragraph should be removed and corresponding changes made to
the rest of section 2.2.]

Notes
-----
Section 2.2 says that bits 64 to 71 of the Ipv6 address MUST be set to zero and references RFC 4291 as the authority. However, RFC 7136 says:

In particular, RFC 4291 defines a method by which the
Universal and Group bits of an IEEE link-layer address are mapped
into an IPv6 unicast interface identifier. This document clarifies
that those two bits are significant only in the process of deriving
interface identifiers from an IEEE link-layer address, and it updates
RFC 4291 accordingly.

Thus, the text I've referenced in RFC 6052 is to enforce a requirement that was not correctly applied, and RFC 6052's statement about bits 64 to 71 should be removed. In addition, there are consequent changes in other parts of RFC 6052, including Figure 1, where the "u" field should be removed from the address formats.

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] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (541… RFC Errata System
Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … mohamed.boucadair