[forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3746 (5340)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 09 September 2019 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BAF1200FD; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hrx7k0WlTR44; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0361200E7; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 74FB5B800EC; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: nmalykh@gmail.com, lily.l.yang@intel.com, rdantu@unt.edu, todd.a.anderson@intel.com, ram.gopal@nokia.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org, forces@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20190909083726.74FB5B800EC@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/U51oic-JzbYpjsTOw0U4zU6d0xQ>
Subject: [forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3746 (5340)
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:37:29 -0000

The following errata report has been held for document update 
for RFC3746, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5340

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

Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2018-04-27
Held by: Martin Vigoureux (IESG)

Section: 4.3

Original Text
-------------
   FEs and CEs may join and leave NEs dynamically (see [4] Section 5,
   requirements #12).  When an FE or CE leaves the NE, the association
   with the NE is broken.  If the leaving party rejoins an NE later, to
   re-establish the association, it may need to re-enter the pre-
   association phase.  Loss of association can also happen unexpectedly
   due to a loss of connection between the CE and the FE.  Therefore,
   the framework allows the bi-directional transition between these two
   phases, but the ForCES Protocol is only applicable for the post-
   association phase.  However, the protocol should provide mechanisms
   to support association re-establishment.  This includes the ability
   for CEs and FEs to determine when there is a loss of association
   between them, and to restore association and efficient state
   (re)synchronization mechanisms (see [4] Section 5, requirement #7).
   Note that security association and state must also be re-established
   to guarantee the same level of security (including both
   authentication and authorization) exists before and after the
   association re-establishment.



Corrected Text
--------------
   FEs and CEs may join and leave NEs dynamically (see [4] Section 4,
   requirements #12).  When an FE or CE leaves the NE, the association
   with the NE is broken.  If the leaving party rejoins an NE later, to
   re-establish the association, it may need to re-enter the pre-
   association phase.  Loss of association can also happen unexpectedly
   due to a loss of connection between the CE and the FE.  Therefore,
   the framework allows the bi-directional transition between these two
   phases, but the ForCES Protocol is only applicable for the post-
   association phase.  However, the protocol should provide mechanisms
   to support association re-establishment.  This includes the ability
   for CEs and FEs to determine when there is a loss of association
   between them, and to restore association and efficient state
   (re)synchronization mechanisms (see [4] Section 4, requirement #7).
   Note that security association and state must also be re-established
   to guarantee the same level of security (including both
   authentication and authorization) exists before and after the
   association re-establishment.



Notes
-----
Incorrect reference to Section 5.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5337

--------------------------------------
RFC3746 (draft-ietf-forces-framework-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework
Publication Date    : April 2004
Author(s)           : L. Yang, R. Dantu, T. Anderson, R. Gopal
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Forwarding and Control Element Separation
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG