IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6] [IANA #1273836] [Errata Verified] RFC8754 (7102)

Amanda Baber via RT <iana-matrix@iana.org> Mon, 29 May 2023 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
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 86432C1519A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 11:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 quejcg-u9v_W for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.lax.icann.org (smtp.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF87AC14CE25 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2023 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request6.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AA1E39E3; Mon, 29 May 2023 18:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request6.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 7C2444AF59; Mon, 29 May 2023 18:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-matrix@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-matrix@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <20230529043131.D67F17FDC5@rfcpa.amsl.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-1273836@icann.org> <20230529043131.D67F17FDC5@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <rt-5.0.3-841803-1685383657-1519.1273836-37-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1273836
X-Managed-BY: RT 5.0.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
CC: stefano@previdi.net, satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp, john@leddy.net, ipv6@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, ddukes@cisco.com, daniel.voyer@bell.ca, cfilsfil@cisco.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 18:07:37 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/18FZlT17Dm5yqYbd4hl-8aNycxQ>
Subject: [IPv6] [IANA #1273836] [Errata Verified] RFC8754 (7102)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 29 May 2023 18:07:41 -0000

Hi all,

Should the "Segment Routing Header (SRH)" entry in the Routing Types registry include a reference to this errata report (in addition to the existing reference to RFC 8754)?

You can see the registration here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters

thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

On Mon May 29 04:31:55 2023, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8754,
>  "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Darren Dukes <ddukes@cisco.com>
> Date Reported: 2022-08-23
> Verified by: Erik Kline (IESG)
> 
> 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).
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 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
> Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email