Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)

"Adrian Farrel" <> Sun, 07 December 2014 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983D11A8758; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiscR6wSI7H0; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64D421A8757; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7DK9nZ006717; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:20:09 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7DK8gS006704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:20:08 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Gregory Mirsky'" <>
References: <> <11ca01d010a2$fff2c130$ffd84390$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:20:03 -0000
Message-ID: <136501d01220$834958e0$89dc0aa0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1366_01D01220.834DECC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQG4SRPFXWGhuDh/2iDRqFsJvZBrdwJVG1MLAq+ETkOci4RTAA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--26.882-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--26.882-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: j4nUk6F+aLanykMun0J1wvX3U1DOEZGvkPqe52Sp8B0hvFjBsLEZNA2K u+gP3kxi3kiD4RHEUuuao1DDysAB4hAMYVTioAt+HmtCXih7f9NlrsuS5tC+P9qCxkzSpW/Xt9z UwxhckRF7agc6LUgrg7QrDT2bryjE8978TsS8mZHYwybFNa+tmyGi0ftsSkQyVv+3DNSQobOOJm pFkiF2w1tsBfbZxKQE2x4ocHMSNYQuHf42idpFxxcqpH7D1rtQ0HjeANoeuJ1cAx/d1AnyZhG59 Y7tVhgxTIxGxG8pNg/AcYNHI1jaMFEAXL0Ub1O9VU3yVpaj3QzfVqwz+Cynace0H7LMCFcVwRq4 tsfhpByVu5TRVGSDEdtaN8VSEQvzw1hXve9gEVCO0rt0LpQGeRSpYqhygmjp6ygMMToK892nhZy bKoFsXELduO9IO73n36y5gCD1lYkzG8Dg48sJ/vIVL3+KSNgwkTzAgHG5eNKgJH974mpbq6gTkL gTtTggXql2hIcwl2sTHy/6jlpjHT4gGkEowIKZNs3S39zaoXYU2wesiIXyuxW+93iqRvX7VD4IX 3GhzkucTZGiBUd8fawQUp5/xlTGp/nT+xnI1R24jAucHcCqnXcF/0kiqyh4DxjBugJBzzwITux6 kRboK9Ezt6XnoBbPnuOhtEsGi0ZP5mzaUz6wQBD3+0w1DhqK3kR1SkDo278ML9Wb3Qh/hZjzLxY juNCwjSJ3SkiGrFPXkuVVlJMsPZx6Ilif8OzGb/5HBZ6dvRgbTwzYj2zQusO/l0Ny5PZ5C5Uxy0 A8KC27sLiGJ4XBUoAy6p60ZV621ROx5lZ1Rh7+xOhjarOnHjsAVzN+Ov/sDBgpg9sCPTMNlBUeS tUiaE9GnLJxNWMItDME7BLSuuAB2a3fIvwCmg==
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:20:38 -0000

Thanks Greg,
I think we could reserve all-1s. But that would need an RFC not an Errata
The point of the report is to fix the text is accidentally different from what
the authors intended.
From: Gregory Mirsky [] 
Sent: 07 December 2014 01:22
Cc:;; Attila Takacs;;;;;
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
Hi Adrian,
thank you for your suggestions. My motivation to make all-1s reserved was to
have symmetry with already reserved all-0s value. If authors of the RFC believe
it is unnecessary then I'm more than happy with the proposed resolution.
From: Adrian Farrel [] 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:49 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc:;; Attila Takacs;;;;;
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
Hi Greg,
I'm returning to this after an indecent interval.
I checked with IANA and they are OK that we can make this sort of change with an
Errata Report and they are happy.
So now we have to agree what it should say.
There is an error in your suggested change, I think because in the first table
you show 65533 as IETF review, and in the second as reserved for
I am keen to make only the minimal changes to fix the obvious bugs. Therefore I
think there is no need to reserve 65535 and it can remain as an experimental
That leaves us with...
    IANA has created the "OAM Sub-TLVs" sub-registry of the "RSVP-TE OAM
    Configuration Registry" as follows:
    Range       | Note                         | Registration Procedures
    0-31        | Generic Sub-TLVs             | IETF Review
   32-65533    | Technology-specific Sub-TLVs | IETF Review
    65534-65535 | Experimental Sub-TLVs        | Reserved for
                                               |   Experimental Use
    IANA has populated the registry as follows:
       Sub-TLV Type | Description                   | Reference
           0        | Reserved                      | [RFC7260]
           1        | OAM Function Flags Sub-TLV    | [RFC7260]
           2-65533  | Unassigned                    |
       65534-65535  | Reserved for Experimental Use | [RFC7260]
Is everyone OK with that change?