[dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (8600)
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 14 October 2025 20:01 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EED737D495 for <dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari.net
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g35zlNhbFh_r for <dhcwg@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84657737D489 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6399706fd3cso8564303a12.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari.net; s=google; t=1760472117; x=1761076917; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:in-reply-to:from:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9nBtyAtDw5kXLhKBsk60OFUPlA5kR2/9r+B3qS2kaFY=; b=YIP8htBpXgvllNj1Aei4JFjhordqFmEM9z19sQ2q8jdrodQvgBv/q8bivIm7AC5Zhv 50c+ZMjD1kHwc9KWGW1L5i7LEGeUpT5okfVzv0i9vEhBX3167PHanT3NtfJ4zlYH64tx AX+s8WP3L++FHGjM7xLQJFfGzs5yKKRILvT7FlzVBI6DHiIpzcMl05uPCjJQ+/tFlL4C 8LbgGAVMqlg09iWRcY1NdwcgRjzWcSJ/lbHxE3J0SXoT47MhrVrS60IT6HRwep1NMF+k RktZ334NFIltDXbuVrN/XOyjFCXJaSFpqN0qDZCEAdQFo1B2PLKyf7muXanJAxwTcLer KFIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760472117; x=1761076917; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:in-reply-to:from:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9nBtyAtDw5kXLhKBsk60OFUPlA5kR2/9r+B3qS2kaFY=; b=SLUnCp6QTehH+BWvNjKL85liMQr+Ar9K8E+hKCOM3JJUqExw3Y6kq/8QxjoRIhKRyz 7FcQ96JOxl0HxLIY+En8i9E4Y/v6CKuqghZ1JrqjLOEcxRbs+M/O8m1ilBiVaknJoHhh GPutC2Hc7PIswilfKBTiIu2yW5kU3ngRSH0z7MHEbOZN6KCFkJfjwjPj/palC5Si59FF 3cGzvFJWx+3oDdpjpzlZHPsG5dErb4TGOZ83++E5DK6CQBwoD+sQy3QzRFDUSt/cOQqC BqDA7CFMn9KOgwyWEp934w9vBD3AuZFxhWpYDqqncQ9TwlsNliFS1cBo7iMgleWdK0jb a0qQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXcPiGILaZlV/GSNcgO9Fyx0Bx7KGcqNrbahAQrtq0vvQyeSSpHDp98e8VTOIssy7tsReq/tw==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz/5bbytt3g9Wd/O19da3qU94tc5O8t6vRRo5tkz8hkmzC62L9j TLFX3mDsT5AZGVRNFpKPZXD//uA4zkpaTq/8p2AAkoXaed6HYcp9QHCXNaYdnU2t0liLqZwJQ6x XkNt+EueS4abiK7+JxLKW07pY3qbcR8HlJ6b61qoyKw==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncut+yulxl5M6kcDzufumtyb2n51keqKxlOKmAFMwlW3low+8ElETcbYh2z52N4 1lkYC4YjoIabttG63BXFZuiDKhxoVx2zO8PnxyjEyd2TZZlGZmCeX0eSrslX7HxWBjUZ5ArAZ6O IkhtPnXJVdnqSCnuZALPG9yluffQq0QOANPBvus3FlK2J8M1yQCGuEAqKQJ3uOavqXhOTg/CdQA QouXwolxxl3FmJlT1eooKjrp6qUDv3Tfp4zGhg6FR2/QBjPEaMk2AcWNJg2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE+kUHfJd92Rapuc/qXEDYiowFxGLVT1dTh5Jw0Z3Z9Bzt6zs1Iwg0VMDSy6khSCgF1QZSPIc0wTXsCyLiA8zY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:26d1:b0:63b:e65b:789e with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-63be65b7b05mr1660062a12.27.1760472117226; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:56 -0700
Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:56 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2025-10-14T19:06:47Z)
References: <20251014182218.B4FFCC00042D@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Superhuman-ID: mgqzmqky.eb81a70c-dd88-4c5a-a116-b285c09ac0cb
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft0074b92d0fa21ae4
In-Reply-To: <20251014182218.B4FFCC00042D@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:01:56 -0700
X-Gm-Features: AS18NWCBrW1PSN3jRVx3FebDREoHRNY3W54wg4x6r75NKz8z33GLevqeW8iQfbA
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+6bYeVv8LV-Q_42sKiqf+UUYxjkivciO-oSEsw1m1KyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f3ff9064123dba9"
X-MailFrom: warren@kumari.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: max-recipients
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dhcwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
Message-ID-Hash: LTHYX6WEOP566L66XZAYXQX2V2WRRFEJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: LTHYX6WEOP566L66XZAYXQX2V2WRRFEJ
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:39:46 -0700
CC: rajiv.asati@gmail.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (8600)
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group <dhcwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Y-EL88zAiuS08jqzbrTXA5hvJLQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dhcwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dhcwg-leave@ietf.org>
I believe that this errata should be rejected, or hold for document update. "Errata are meant to fix "bugs" in the specification and should not be used to change what the community meant when it approved the RFC." - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/ While this text could *clearly* be improved, this was the consensus when the document was published, so this isn't really an Errata. IIRC, we did have some discussions around "1% or <some time>, whichever is greater" but we were not able to get any sort of consensus on <some time>, and so the consensus was to go with this… W On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:22 PM, RFC Errata System < rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9686, > "Registering Self-Generated IPv6 Addresses Using DHCPv6". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8600 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Patrick Rohr <prohr@google.com> > > Section: 4.6.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > Whenever the network changes the Valid Lifetime of an existing address by > more than 1%, for example, by sending a Prefix Information Option (PIO) > [RFC4861] with a new Valid Lifetime, the client calculates a new > AddrRegRefreshInterval. > > --- > > * The 1% tolerance ensures that the client will not refresh or reschedule > refreshes if the Valid Lifetime experiences minor changes due to > transmission delays or clock skew between the client and the router(s) > sending the RA. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Whenever the network changes the Valid Lifetime of an existing address by > more than 3s, for example, by sending a Prefix Information Option (PIO) > [RFC4861] with a new Valid Lifetime, the client calculates a new > AddrRegRefreshInterval. > > --- > > * The 3s tolerance ensures that the client will not refresh or reschedule > refreshes if the Valid Lifetime experiences minor changes due to > transmission delays or clock skew between the client and the router(s) > sending the RA. > > Notes > ----- > Replace 1% tolerance with 3s tolerance. > > Rationale: As the remaining lifetime approaches zero, the 1% tolerance > also approaches zero which can trigger redundant address refreshes. This > problem is exacerbated by potential integer rounding, where 1% of 99s could > be rounded down to 0s. Android's implementation of this mechanism uses a 3s > tolerance instead. Since both clock skew and transmission delays are > independent from the address lifetime, using a static tolerance is more > consistent and still follows the original intent of this mechanism. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be > removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use "Reply All" to > discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is > reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the > report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9686 (draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification-13) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Registering Self-Generated IPv6 Addresses Using DHCPv6 Publication > Date : December 2024 > Author(s) : W. Kumari, S. Krishnan, R. Asati, L. Colitti, J. Linkova, S. > Jiang Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Dynamic Host Configuration > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > >
- [dhcwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (8600) rfc-editor
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Bernie Volz
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Warren Kumari
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Patrick Rohr
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Bernie Volz
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Warren Kumari
- [dhcwg] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9686 (… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)