[forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5812 (5363)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 10 September 2019 19:18 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 0FF601208C9; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:18:15 -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 cY_ze-jIFmdj; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:18:13 -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 2140712080E; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E0C7EB80C7F; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: nmalykh@gmail.com, jmh@joelhalpern.com, hadi@mojatatu.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, forces@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190910191810.E0C7EB80C7F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:18:10 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/oeNl35HGYlQGEfUdeDbePfq_kTg>
Subject: [forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5812 (5363)
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:18:20 -0000
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC5812, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5363 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2018-05-18 Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) Section: 3.2.8 Original Text ------------- An interesting issue related to class inheritance is backward compatibility between a descendant and an ancestor class. Consider the following hypothetical scenario where a standardized LFB class "L1" exists. Vendor A builds an FE that implements LFB "L1", and vendor B builds a CE that can recognize and operate on LFB "L1". Suppose that a new LFB class, "L2", is defined based on the existing "L1" class by extending its capabilities incrementally. Let us examine the FE backward-compatibility issue by considering what would happen if vendor B upgrades its FE from "L1" to "L2" and vendor C's Halpern & Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 5812 ForCES FE Model March 2010 CE is not changed. The old L1-based CE can interoperate with the new L2-based FE if the derived LFB class "L2" is indeed backward compatible with the base class "L1". Corrected Text -------------- An interesting issue related to class inheritance is backward compatibility between a descendant and an ancestor class. Consider the following hypothetical scenario where a standardized LFB class "L1" exists. Vendor A builds an FE that implements LFB "L1", and vendor B builds a CE that can recognize and operate on LFB "L1". Suppose that a new LFB class, "L2", is defined based on the existing "L1" class by extending its capabilities incrementally. Let us examine the FE backward-compatibility issue by considering what would happen if vendor A upgrades its FE from "L1" to "L2" and vendor B's Halpern & Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 5812 ForCES FE Model March 2010 CE is not changed. The old L1-based CE can interoperate with the new L2-based FE if the derived LFB class "L2" is indeed backward compatible with the base class "L1". Notes ----- Confusion in the notation of vendors. -------------------------------------- RFC5812 (draft-ietf-forces-model-16) -------------------------------------- Title : Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model Publication Date : March 2010 Author(s) : J. Halpern, J. Hadi Salim Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Forwarding and Control Element Separation Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [forces] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC581… RFC Errata System