[IPv6] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8754 (7102)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 01 June 2023 21:32 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB38EC15154C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.84, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zlcVJ2ZaSz8w for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 14:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (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 F23D1C15106E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 14:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id CF95AEDE66; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 14:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: cfilsfil@cisco.com, ddukes@cisco.com, stefano@previdi.net, john@leddy.net, satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp, daniel.voyer@bell.ca, ek.ietf@gmail.com, evyncke@cisco.com, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org, furry13@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ddukes@cisco.com, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230601213245.CF95AEDE66@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 14:32:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-gr63nIMJ7EK0nsyJQ8MqRkNBYo>
Subject: [IPv6] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8754 (7102)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 21:32:50 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8754, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Darren Dukes <ddukes@cisco.com> Section: 2 Original Text ------------- Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4. Corrected Text -------------- Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4. Specifically, for the SRH, the number of segments remaining in the Segment List. Notes ----- RFC8754 describes “The encoding of IPv6 segments in the SRH” where IPv6 segments are defined in RFC8402. RFC8402 describes binding SIDs and adjacency SIDs for SRv6. Both these SID types identify more than a single explicitly listed intermediate node to be visited. The current definition of Segments Left only indicates it is defined in RFC8200, and RFC8200 defines it as “Number of route segments remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the final destination”. Previous versions of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header (0-11) referenced RFC2460/RFC8200 and described the Segments Left field by use in the SRH; as an index into the Segment List. This was removed in later versions (12/13) to consolidate the use of segments left to be specific to the segment processed (now section 4.3.1). However, that removed the definition of its meaning in the SRH which led to the current issue. The corrected text restores the meaning of Segments Left for the SRH in relation to Segment List (which is not defined in RFC8200), while still leaving its use during segment processing to the segment definition (section 4.3.1 or future documents). 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 (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8754 (draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26) -------------------------------------- Title : IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) Publication Date : March 2020 Author(s) : C. Filsfils, Ed., D. Dukes, Ed., S. Previdi, J. Leddy, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IPv6 Maintenance Area : Internet Stream : IETF
- [IPv6] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8754 (7102) RFC Errata System