Re: [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4271 (5001)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB389129BA4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 AkCgJXc52giV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5A2129B89 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3568; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492624841; x=1493834441; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=EkHeXdlfX9R99Uov1HxKjX1JYMoLx88wxisboBfWzMQ=; b=AdmkQFXTHgPNh7DDwMq1x46L4VpaLZ1g+dd+WqDkKs9yZbrXQCO7rY8c uWKoi8HDplAGfSAQW/kkIR674AJ6LGgmr5OO6JHVpdU49ewr4BecS746m cWb1Tq3u8tF6tv4mT9gwfLt31emdJSkPpK6d6iVfo44rIxZ64WHnBVyw3 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APAQBBpfdY/5JdJa1CGhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNUYYELB4NgihWnRYIPLIV4AhqDaj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBax0LhRY?= =?us-ascii?q?GIxFFEAIBCBoCJgICAjAVEAIEDgWKGQ4xqgaCJoskAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBHYELhUiBXSuCboE8gVyBP4MGLoIxBYkzEYgOhGyGcQGSe4IAhTGKG4h?= =?us-ascii?q?siyQBHzgVcGMVGjsBhFQMEIFjdQETh3SBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,222,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="233098441"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Apr 2017 18:00:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3JI0emb018162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:00:40 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:00:39 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:00:39 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4271 (5001)
Thread-Index: AQHSuTQcHT9js/KsJUeWRsw9RvAV8aHNDA4A
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:00:39 +0000
Message-ID: <DCAC4E8F-A609-4DCB-BADB-23434A6F0EAC@cisco.com>
References: <20170419174042.7AA36B814E4@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170419174042.7AA36B814E4@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B8312660F310DB45AF8D4A13D24839B2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XKzIZofxWQcncg5QVyma4MssxtA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4271 (5001)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:00:44 -0000

[Cut the distribution.]

idr WG:

I think this report is a lot clearer than the other one John filed (#5000), so I am going to mark this one as “Hold for Document Update” [1].

Just because this report is related to the use of “MAY NOT” I will wait until we resolve the other one just in case.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html 



On 4/19/17, 1:40 PM, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4271,
"A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4271&eid=5001

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>

Section: 5

Original Text
-------------
   BGP implementations MUST recognize all well-known attributes.  Some
   of these attributes are mandatory and MUST be included in every
   UPDATE message that contains NLRI.  Others are discretionary and MAY
   or MAY NOT be sent in a particular UPDATE message.


Corrected Text
--------------
   BGP implementations MUST recognize all well-known attributes.  Some
   of these attributes are mandatory and MUST be included in every
   UPDATE message that contains NLRI.  Others are discretionary and 
   sending them in a particular UPDATE message is OPTIONAL.

Notes
-----
The original text uses "MAY NOT" capitalized as if it were an RFC 2119 keyword. However, RFC 2119 does not have any defined meaning for "MAY NOT". In context, it is unlikely the reader would be at risk of misinterpreting the text, but nonetheless it's a misuse of RFC 2119 terminology and difficult to parse if reading closely.

(The replacement text was suggested by Eric Rosen; thanks.)

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC4271 (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
Publication Date    : January 2006
Author(s)           : Y. Rekhter, Ed., T. Li, Ed., S. Hares, Ed.
Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
Source              : Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG