[dtn] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9171 (7881)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 07 April 2024 23:12 UTC

To: jh571912@ohio.edu, sburleig.sb@gmail.com, kfall+rcs@kfall.com, edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ek.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, dtn@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240407231246.57823CE3DB@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 16:12:46 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/qlyvr34VaMfLVzTzh9VFfhqoE2I>
Subject: [dtn] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9171 (7881)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC9171, "Bundle Protocol Version 7". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7881

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: John Huff <jh571912@ohio.edu>
Date Reported: 2024-04-03
Held by: Erik Kline (IESG)

Section: 6.1.1

Original Text
-------------
   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR Boolean
   value.

Corrected Text
--------------
   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR simple
   value.  A value of 'true' SHALL be encoded as a CBOR simple value
   with additional information 21.  A value of 'false' SHALL be encoded
   as a CBOR simple value with additional information 20.

Notes
-----
The CBOR spec does not define a 'Boolean' type (RFC8949). It's become common practice to encode boolean values as simple values (major type 7), with additional information 21 indicating 'true' and additional information 20 indicating 'false' (RFC9254, RFC8152). However, this should be explicitly stated for clarity.

--- comments ---

The original text refers to "Boolean values" and not to any "Boolean type"; it is technically correct as is.

As noted, CBOR doesn't have a specific "type" per se for a Boolean, but RFC 8948 S3.3 clearly specifies an encoding for `true` and `false`.

That said, there might be room here for additional clarity for implementers if there is ever to be a 9171bis.

--------------------------------------
RFC9171 (draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Bundle Protocol Version 7
Publication Date    : January 2022
Author(s)           : S. Burleigh, K. Fall, E. Birrane, III
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[dtn] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC9171 (… RFC Errata System