Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (3332)
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Sun, 02 September 2012 12:28 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 134A121F88C3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sb25OkjaBFTM for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6C021F88BA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1336288094; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Littlejohn.local (c-69-140-213-249.hsd1.md.comcast.net [69.140.213.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C63130019; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <504350EE.7000301@innovationslab.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 08:28:30 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <20120901121110.9372CB1E002@rfc-editor.org> <95AA3CFE-8839-4283-9B57-E9B05A31F5E4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <95AA3CFE-8839-4283-9B57-E9B05A31F5E4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:45:15 -0700
Cc: ot@cisco.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, dhcwg@ietf.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ted.lemon@nominum.com
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6603 (3332)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:28:35 -0000
Hi Jouni,
I agree that this is an error. The question is whether it can
demonstrably cause an implementation error. If it can, then it should
be accepted. If it is easily recognized as a typo, it should classified
as "hold for document update".
Regards,
Brian
On 9/2/12 8:03 AM, Jouni wrote:
>
> The errata is correct and should be accepted. In section 4.1 it is
> specifically stated that "There can be at most one OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE
> option in one OPTION_IAPREFIX option."
>
> - Jouni
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:11 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6603,
>> "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6603&eid=3332
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Gaurav Halwasia <ghalwasi@cisco.com>
>>
>> Section: 4.2
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Any prefix excluded from the delegated prefix MUST be contained in
>> OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE options within the corresponding OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Any prefix excluded from the delegated prefix MUST be contained in
>> OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option within the corresponding OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> As per this specification OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option is used to exclude exactly one prefix from a delegated prefix. So as per this specification only one instance of OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option can be present within OPTION_IAPREFIX.
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This errata 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 (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC6603 (draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-04)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title : Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation
>> Publication Date : May 2012
>> Author(s) : J. Korhonen, Ed., T. Savolainen, S. Krishnan, O. Troan
>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source : Dynamic Host Configuration
>> Area : Internet
>> Stream : IETF
>> Verifying Party : IESG