Re: [IPv6] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8754 (7102)

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Chris!

Re-verifying with the text discussed here.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:40 PM Chris Smiley <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi Erik,
>
> EID 7102 is back to “reported” state.
>
> Thanks!
> Chris
>
> > On May 29, 2023, at 3:40 PM, Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > There has been a request to engage in some word-smithing before
> > returning this to Verified.
> >
> > May I ask that it be put back into Reported state while this is
> discussed?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:38 PM RFC Errata System
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
>
>