[BEHAVE] [Errata Rejected] RFC6052 (5415)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 16 January 2020 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBCB120024; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:40:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXnafjiA5oVG; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E82212001E; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 43FEFF40723; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:40:12 -0800 (PST)
To: worley@ariadne.com, congxiao@cernet.edu.cn, huitema@microsoft.com, marcelo@it.uc3m.es, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, xing@cernet.edu.cn
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200116104012.43FEFF40723@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 02:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/vooWbXcjUa0_5ZC8hzlroJ03lQg>
Subject: [BEHAVE] [Errata Rejected] RFC6052 (5415)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:40:21 -0000

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

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

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
Date Reported: 2018-07-01
Rejected by: Magnus Westerlund (IESG)

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.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
   AD (Magnus Westerlund): A clarification by a later RFC that impacts this RFC is not an errata. The change appears to require a consensus decision on how to handle it. Thus rejected on formal grounds, should be considered if document is revised in the future. 

--------------------------------------
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