[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 (PDT)
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