Re: [Dime] Dime Errata [Technical Errata Reported] RFC 7155 (6029)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Luke,

Thanks for the additional information.  Despite being responsible for deciding how to process this errata, I’m not very familiar with these protocol drafts, and hence it would be helpful to get some feedback from more experts in the Dime WG.

>From your email and research (thanks!), it seems more plausible to me that you are raising a valid issue here, but without confirmation from the WG, I don’t think that I would be able to mark this errata as verified.  I think that the best that I could probably do is “Held for Document Update” which means that it may be valid but it would require a future version of the RFC to check & confirm whether it is valid and should be incorporated.

Regards,
Rob


From: Luke Mewburn <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 11 February 2024 at 01:00
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Dime Errata [Technical Errata Reported] RFC 7155 (6029)
Hi Rob,

I'm the author of errata 6029.

Summary:

I think the lack of "M" or "V" in QoS-Filter-Rule is an editorial copypasta bug in the original RFC 4005.
"V" flag MUST NOT be used, as QoS-Filter-Rule and all the other RFC 7155 AVPs are base AVPs not vendor AVPs.

Arguably, "M" should have been MUST in the original RFC 4005, but because it wasn't, it may be considered a breaking change to now make "M" MUST for QoS-Filter-Rule. I did highlight this in my note.

As such, I think my errata could be revised to remove "M" from the 'It should say"


Section 4.4 says:

   QoS-Filter-Rule             4.4.9        |    |     |

It should say:

   QoS-Filter-Rule             4.4.9        |    |  V  |

thoughts?



Details:

Spelunking through the Diameter RFCs for QoS related information, I see:


(1). RFC 3588 (obsoleted by RFC 6733) lists AVP Flag Rules in tables with at least 4 columns:
MUST, MAY, SHLD NOT, MUST NOT
and generally the M, P, and V bits are listed once and once only per AVP.


(2) RFC 6733 (obsoletes RFC 3588) lists AVP Flag Rules in tables with at least 2 columns:
MUST, MUST NOT
This RFC also changes P bit so that it is reserved, so only M and V are used.


(3) RFC 4005 (obsoleted by RFC 7155) section 6 table contains QoS-Filter-Rule. This does not list any bits for QoS-Filter-Rule in the AVP Flag rules 4 columns  MUST, MAY, SHLD NOT, or MUST NOT. This does not make sense; all of the other AVPs in this RFC list the M, P, and V bits once and once only per row, per (1) above.

I speculate that the reason that QoS-Filter-Rule doesn't have any entries in the table is a copypasta issue from the 2 row Configuration-Token entry above it.


(4) RFC 4005 (obsoleted by RFC 7155) section 6.9 documents QoS-Filter-Rule.
This section states:
An access device unable to interpret or apply a QoS rule SHOULD NOT
terminate the session.


(5) RFC 7155 (obsoletes RFC 4005) section 4.1.1 QoSFilterRule,  a derived rule.
This section appears copied from the original RFC 4005 section 6.9 (see (4))


(6). RFC 7155 section 4.4 table lists QoS-Filter-Rule without any AVP Flag Rules.
All other AVPs in this section have the AVP Flag Rules:
- MUST "M" (Mandatory bit)
- MUST NOT "V" (Vendor bit) because non of the AVPs in this RFC are vendor AVPs.

This is the errata. I think it is missing "M" and "V" per (3) above.




regards,
Luke.





On 10 Feb 2024, at 01:39, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Dime WG,

And another one.  This time, it is errata 6029, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6029

Looking at this RFC and the previous versio, I believe that the table was intentionally defined this way – it seems very unlikely to be a mistake to me, so I would propose rejecting this errata.

Please reply with any comments by the 16th Feb.

Regards,
Rob





The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7155,

"Diameter Network Access Server Application".



--------------------------------------

You may review the report below and at:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6029



--------------------------------------

Type: Technical

Reported by: Luke Mewburn <[e-mail]><mailto:&lt;[e-mail]&gt;>



Section: 4.4



Original Text

-------------

   QoS-Filter-Rule             4.4.9        |    |     |



Corrected Text

--------------

   QoS-Filter-Rule             4.4.9        | M  |  V  |



Notes

-----

The row "QoS-Filter-Rule" does not define AVP Flag Rules for "M" or "V":

- The V Flag MUST NOT be used for this AVP.

- There may be some debate whether the M Flag can be retrospectively added to the MUST column, versus leaving it out (implied "MAY" ?).



The changes are consistent with all other AVPs in this RFC.



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.



--------------------------------------

RFC7155 (draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-14)

--------------------------------------

Title               : Diameter Network Access Server Application

Publication Date    : April 2014

Author(s)           : G. Zorn, Ed.

Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD

Source              : Diameter Maintenance and Extensions

Area                : Operations and Management

Stream              : IETF

Verifying Party     : IESG


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime