Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Mon, 15 January 2024 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3180DC14F600 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfnGdAHyLA9n for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [46.182.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1742CC14F605 for <grow@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crumpet.local (vpn.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netability.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6561CB062F; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:37:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com>, "yangtzeriverli@gmail.com" <yangtzeriverli@gmail.com>, "cengiz@isi.edu" <cengiz@isi.edu>, "curtis@avici.com" <curtis@avici.com>, "epg@home.net" <epg@home.net>, "David.Kessens@qwest.net" <David.Kessens@qwest.net>, "meyer@antc.uoregon.edu" <meyer@antc.uoregon.edu>, "tbates@cisco.com" <tbates@cisco.com>, "dfk@ripe.net" <dfk@ripe.net>, "marten@baynetworks.com" <marten@BayNetworks.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20230713133118.76F15E5F78@rfcpa.amsl.com> <292DC7A5-CCED-40C6-9886-5631AAE8F6FF@amsl.com> <LV8PR11MB85363382C961BCD75EF64F24B56C2@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <98810fd5-c797-c55e-f858-2870a255d5f1@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:36:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.60
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <LV8PR11MB85363382C961BCD75EF64F24B56C2@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3EE267981A16FE12B0E8E5EC"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/ndFb4B81ellkKKu5k7HePUeozmk>
Subject: Re: [GROW] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:37:14 -0000

The erratum looks valid to me.

"aut-num: AS1" defines a routing policy for AS1. The two peering sets 
specify the IP address of the local router in question (i.e. of AS1) as 
being 9.9.9.1.  The description in the line above example 7 states that 
9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2 (AS2) and 9.9.9.3 (AS3), so 
the prng-set should refer to AS2 and AS3 instead of AS1 and AS2.

Also, is there a contest for the longest time between rfc publication 
and someone noticing a valid erratum?

Nick

Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 15/01/2024 09:38:
>
> Hi Authors, Grow WG, Warren,
>
> I don’t know RPSL, but reading the errata, and section 5.6 of that 
> document, my instinct is that this errata is valid.  Is anyone able to 
> confirm please?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *Chris Smiley <csmiley@amsl.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 22:00
> *To: *yangtzeriverli@gmail.com <yangtzeriverli@gmail.com>, 
> cengiz@isi.edu <cengiz@isi.edu>, curtis@avici.com <curtis@avici.com>, 
> epg@home.net <epg@home.net>, David.Kessens@qwest.net 
> <David.Kessens@qwest.net>, meyer@antc.uoregon.edu 
> <meyer@antc.uoregon.edu>, tbates@cisco.com <tbates@cisco.com>, 
> dfk@ripe.net <dfk@ripe.net>, marten@baynetworks.com 
> <marten@BayNetworks.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Rob 
> Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2622 (7564)
>
> Greetings,
>
> This errata reports a problem with Section 86-13269662805/RFC2622. 
> Upon further review, we believe it should point to Section 5.6/RFC2622.
>
> We have updated accordingly. Please let us know any concerns.
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/cs
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2023, at 6:31 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> > 
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2622,
> > "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)".
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7564
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Jiang Li <yangtzeriverli@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Section: 86-13269662805
> > 
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > In page 26 of RFC2622
> > In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
> > and 9.9.9.3.
> > (7) peering-set: prng-bar
> > peering: AS1 at 9.9.9.1
> > peering-set: prng-foo
> > peering: prng-bar
> > peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1
> > aut-num: AS1
> > import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
> > 
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > In the following example 9.9.9.1 imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2
> > and 9.9.9.3.
> > (7) peering-set: prng-bar
> > peering: AS3 at 9.9.9.1
> > peering-set: prng-foo
> > peering: prng-bar
> > peering: AS2 at 9.9.9.1
> > aut-num: AS1
> > import: from prng-foo accept { 128.9.0.0/16 }
> > 
> > Notes
> > -----
> > As  "Figure 22: Example topology consisting of three ASes, AS1, AS2, and
> > AS3; two exchange points, EX1 and EX2; and six routers." shows, the router 9.9.9.1 of AS1 connects to the router 9.9.9.3 of AS3 in 
> exchange point 2.  It states that "In the following example 9.9.9.1 
> imports 128.9.0.0/16 from 9.9.9.2 and 9.9.9.3.", so I think the 
> corresponding AS of 9.9.9.3 should be AS3 instead of AS1.
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC2622 (draft-ietf-rps-rpsl-v2-03)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
> > Publication Date    : June 1999
> > Author(s)           : C. Alaettinoglu, C. Villamizar, E. Gerich, D. Kessens, D. Meyer, T. Bates, D. Karrenberg, M. Terpstra
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Routing Policy System
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow