Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8357 (6008)

Hi Bernie,

Apologies for the much-delayed reply.

We went ahead and edited this report as we believe you intended.  Please review and confirm.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6008

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf

On Mar 5, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> The change to the diagram seems to have happened during the RFC process (the -10 draft has the correct diagram).
>  
> I don't recall how we can handle errata and whether it is better to "cancel" the current one and substitute a different one that has the correct text, as follows:
>  
> The incorrect "diagram" is in Section 4.2:
>  
>        0                   1                   2                   3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |    OPTION_RELAY_PORT    |         Option-Len                  |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |    Downstream Source Port     |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>  
> The correct diagram (from draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10 after updating the option name which is what I think caused the issue):
>  
>        0                   1                   2                   3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |       OPTION_RELAY_PORT       |         Option-Len            |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |    Downstream Source Port     |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>  
> Note: You need to assure that the diagrams are in a fixed space font (such as Courier New).
>  
> As per RFC8415, the option code (OPTION_RELAY_PORT) and option length fields (Option-Len) are both 16-bits – seehttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415#section-21.1).
>  
> 	• Bernie
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) 
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:05 AM
> To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: naiming@cisco.com; Enke Chen (enkechen) <enkechen@cisco.com>; suresh@kaloom.com; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>; tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com; bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8357 (6008)
>  
> The diagram is a bit off, but the text is correct that option-code and option-len are both 16-bits.
>  
> We can log errata that diagram is broken, but the text is correct.
>  
> - Bernie
>  
> > On Mar 5, 2020, at 6:08 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8357,
> > "Generalized UDP Source Port for DHCP Relay".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6008
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr>
> >
> > Section: 4.2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Option-Code:  OPTION_RELAY_PORT. 16-bit value, 135.
> >
> > Option-Len:  16-bit value to be set to 2.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > Option-Code:  OPTION_RELAY_PORT. 13-bit value, 135.
> >
> > Option-Len:  19-bit value to be set to 2.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Discrepancy between the diagram and the text noted by
> > draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-02
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8357 (draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-10)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Generalized UDP Source Port for DHCP Relay
> > Publication Date    : March 2018
> > Author(s)           : N. Shen, E. Chen
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Dynamic Host Configuration
> > Area                : Internet
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg