Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 22 October 2020 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 016B33A10C7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 1AlDigqfXAMb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f53.google.com (mail-vs1-f53.google.com [209.85.217.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7BA63A10C3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f53.google.com with SMTP id f4so1302469vsk.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yrg49eDkmDoLj4SY3I3MYwbWdHlOoYHABKBdbHBZ9zg=; b=Glzx5L+gygSImKATQEnUD6ZU3O2yuTmQMgfylhWsQZbr7Cnpo1AWJytGJFYKxAVsnp 9aAbTs1z+YlMjsgb4iOxFKQQU6YqLCsIYPd0NXrEyUem/BbHyYihVdQ+Urfer208kVLA K1OG6mzOxVxIHUYV7s4E80cTEY+IA8sV8Q7/rN9lhdkyjGh3SKtZ04OWMVHQZEFjys6b qjQMR8QONpNnPDJQLofG4NoNRsJNhzTA8m9s26cToed4BXqlvYHUCzYyRRfRIfAxreDT nBmxuarPYVsZB/M+fLGO96LXSmbcfVM4qgKQAjYsBsgyK8oAycgvvSLicoHZ9krz1zTn rbBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Kj1CPPDycPqdsXKsA2jWQU/ZF5HLtuEsnRVkf5WJlJTYL/mfO mWPqr0ETD+XSU6jR9nQU/OlAn8ICxIUqtrB1y4M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfdryxTiH3xdHm2tUIIE1lowapR5zIfyCuQLFiIZdJtaw95K2iG4SlMZxUhruXTpVsthbE40tZt1U+QX/NRxI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f453:: with SMTP id r19mr3598744vsn.43.1603402614372; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200501110357.90D62F40722@rfc-editor.org> <CALZ3u+avjk-N726U8ZxVrhsjEcXaTC5iwCmdZQYahM+fqhntJQ@mail.gmail.com> <e2ea372f-4841-f82c-12a2-d0ba2694ca37@gont.com.ar> <CAJE_bqcYwa4FLsEL3y0Sf2ae=sK_L-1SMz382dkzVAW9MxoSAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALZ3u+ZHeDq5FLu2yL3UE0336o07PSDHrzd=NwAT3kmyfkk2Mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZ3u+ZHeDq5FLu2yL3UE0336o07PSDHrzd=NwAT3kmyfkk2Mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:36:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcWQwypgy2a10B4d5uyoEpDPt7CLv3ML7LV6OgoYQD3Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, aconta@txc.com, Daniel Ginsburg <dginsburg@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, none@rfc-editor.org, mukesh.gupta@tropos.com, bob.hinden@nokia.com, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Jw_pNcRhhkFX7SxGLC0uRomTe1Q>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 Oct 2020 21:36:57 -0000

At Fri, 23 Oct 2020 00:00:38 +0300,
Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't have a strong opinion on whether to approve the erratum, but
> > if we do so, I'd keep this part of the original text: "This condition
> > can occur only when the scope of the source address is smaller than
> > the scope of the destination address
>
> This particular phrase is actually incorrect.  Scope zone is not
> scope, and per 4007 zones, not scopes, should be considered.

RFC 4007 also defines the "size" of the concept of scopes:

   There is a size relationship among scopes:

   o  For unicast scopes, link-local is a smaller scope than global.

   o  For multicast scopes, scopes with lesser values in the "scop"
      subfield of the multicast address (Section 2.7 of [1]) are smaller
      than scopes with greater values, with interface-local being the
      smallest and global being the largest.

The text in RFC4443 I sited perfectly makes sense to me in this
regard.

In any case, whether we compare "scopes" or "scope zones", my point is
that the note of this text is useful and IMO its sense should be kept.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya