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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Sun, 07 December 2014 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37221A8761; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:12:03 -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 9HDaEj9wy2bW; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8ECE1A020B; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 06:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7EBdDD017137; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:11:39 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB7EBZ0D017084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:11:36 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Gregory Mirsky'" <>
References: <> <11ca01d010a2$fff2c130$ffd84390$> <> <136501d01220$834958e0$89dc0aa0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:11:31 -0000
Message-ID: <137d01d01227$b4cf8db0$1e6ea910$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_137E_01D01227.B4DD4950"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQG4SRPFXWGhuDh/2iDRqFsJvZBrdwJVG1MLAq+ETkMCJJNeqgHQfTZynGvvpXA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--28.309-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--28.309-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8HTFlOrbAtHr/497FfFvZumc4/pDEQa2DWfZBggWU3XYpRv5miLGfLnx hIt+8oeIfgsZQfgAz7k2O3qnaevuHOO1ibGOrN1Rma6DzXaohvMS12tj9Zvd8/002DXYmoa1Arf whXClRwmV18eyPf5mlE+LVhi2IFxT0orU+fkIj1DISPeZE8elXkKzuF0egUUDwaaX3YWNLhHc61 fkELl2KgLcypum82RLSHCGonA+tRaqDnzRgK0zcwlPus/MSqC7TJDl9FKHbrkHWPn2mj7oRCacn bShnMCcr3SNFzMXxmcig+A3HEvrTVDV9sDqOQY/syNb+yeIRAoDlsejEAvAg9zOQo7mTgA+o0/t 1gD0V8M22uoEm245fkFWCvm86w840sXpjQvtH9BwUSK4/EeOxbRfRjDbtW6i5DjmdW0+qbGuwVT xTDkELrK2YHb/kidP/PEgL0tqyq50bnu2kHqixLMsPmSZxbpkE7JInT4wddoTjfkO3pb+WD0msI gSyun3H/Z71HJDNaFacyhB9L1arxJ3qw6ad/ljABhihvAhvAJIeNYTP8OmTPk3SjZMcZFkUlBh+ kbitM8/DUc/B6QpkmRGSnUqeCO9OQRl+99vaMkMH4SsGvRsA1qvZZ9/gpIhpRezBf/GshIGk2pT PAu+9//55Kkc+9/6c91xMYNqHkVw5YMyIgibAuRw69tAYXNGl2F9+KxZd8cL/50zj0KL7BY+750 9sPX7ZLNHiJlyaWEtY3smclWYCYIiDu0n/+6xi+m1DDPm2yL/fHyH+MCF5RUZTfM00s4+akcq2R AHKcqx/667QIps1TBOwaDA4JnNo27w8ee4WC+eAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPDxzdxDi jdbMze36sKKy4ePbKzPKXQyq+DoapKYjd0qfEBuuR0SGCAefki7cVK33ib3MjKNSXX/RQ==
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 14:12:04 -0000

Nope, that's OK. I'll handle it.
From: Gregory Mirsky [] 
Sent: 07 December 2014 13:49
Cc:;; Attila Takacs;;;;;
Subject: RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7260 (4106)
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
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?