[dhcwg] [Errata Rejected] RFC2131 (7776)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 23 April 2024 12:59 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5B3C14F6B8; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGWG-cxhXr_A; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7730C14F61B; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id CDA9911FDEC; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: sahsah.imrane@gmail.com, droms@bucknell.edu
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: evyncke@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240423125915.CDA9911FDEC@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 05:59:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/HPmb-5E2ehfJM6pqvS02GNb5zzM>
Subject: [dhcwg] [Errata Rejected] RFC2131 (7776)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:59:19 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC2131, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7776 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Imrane <sahsah.imrane@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2024-01-23 Rejected by: Eric Vyncke (IESG) Section: 4.3.1 Original Text ------------- Client identifier MUST NOT MUST NOT MAY Corrected Text -------------- Client identifier MUST NOT MUST NOT MUST NOT Notes ----- In the "Options" list in Table 3 ("Fields and options used by DHCP server"), the "Client identifier" option has "MUST NOT" for both DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK; however, for DHCPNAK, it has "MAY". "Client identifier" should be a "MUST NOT" for DHCPNAK as well. It seems that the field should only be used by a client and never by a server, and if that's true for the OFFER and ACK, then it should be even more correct for the NAK. "Vendor class identifier" has a MAY for all three messages, so maybe it was a typo in the previous option because of the repetitive input in the next one. --VERIFIER NOTES-- RFC 6842 has addressed this problem with more information than a simple errata. I.e., the problem in RFC 2131 exists indeed but has been fixed. -------------------------------------- RFC2131 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Publication Date : March 1997 Author(s) : R. Droms Category : DRAFT STANDARD Source : Dynamic Host Configuration Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [dhcwg] [Errata Rejected] RFC2131 (7776) RFC Errata System