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

Gregory Mirsky <> Sun, 07 December 2014 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C131A8760; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uxerzgXvxFEh; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:49:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF821A875D; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:49:21 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-21-5483fe70ee64
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E3.13.25146.07EF3845; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:14:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:49:11 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
Thread-Index: AQHPy5pZch2KBOE5ZEKuHN4DSxvQ9ZyCApgAgAHdmnCAAR1vgP//s+BQ
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 13:49:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <11ca01d010a2$fff2c130$ffd84390$> <> <136501d01220$834958e0$89dc0aa0$>
In-Reply-To: <136501d01220$834958e0$89dc0aa0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B8AE285eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgm7Bv+YQgw83DC1+9Nxgtvj08BKz xZM5N1gstu9cwmLRMuUds0VH81sWi9YfO1gc2D1e9s9h9Ng56y67R8uRt6weS5b8ZPL4sKmZ zWPF5pWMAWxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBmbZ21mLJg4m7Hi3fL3LA2MTzoYuxg5OSQETCRevbjL DGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgCKPEgk+nmSGcZYwSGw59ZAKpYhMwknixsYcdxBYR0JfoPjeNHaSI WeAwk0T7LZCxHBzCAuYSiyZmQtRYSGx/No0FwnaTuLJ5NRuIzSKgItF5Zw6YzSvgK/Fw+S6w GiGBu4wSr5fIgdicAtYSzyecA9vFCHTd91NrwG5gFhCXuPVkPhPE1QISS/ach/pAVOLl43+s ELaSxJzX15gh6vMlFre2sUPsEpQ4OfMJywRG0VlIRs1CUjYLSRlEXEdiwe5PbBC2tsSyha+Z YewzBx4zIYsvYGRfxchRWpxalptuZLiJERi1xyTYHHcwLvhkeYhRgINRiYd3w6HmECHWxLLi ytxDjNIcLErivJrV84KFBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MMoJV32T9s6o0so2tfHa 49LoojPN6xVfQt9E083z/Lq+TyheLOQ1fx234MyrgXM25PJ8tJCYnLEhwGSicL7tD/U56T5X 7prPM10ndcjHuVBPdA1TirCXak1myY3Qq09XNG6Ymys0L1rq/jN+u/9Ps50CuOaymIu9mPb5 56U/rVrGhTuP8fcdVmIpzkg01GIuKk4EAGICAMS7AgAA
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
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 13:49:26 -0000

Hi Adrian,
I agree with the resolution you've proposed.
Please let me know if I need to make changes to the Errata or it can be resolved based on your proposal.


From: Adrian Farrel []
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 9:20 PM
To: Gregory Mirsky
Cc:;; Attila Takacs;;;;;
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)

Thanks Greg,

I think we could reserve all-1s. But that would need an RFC not an Errata Report.
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 experimentation.

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 value.

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?