Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6936 (4341)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22/04/2015 00:07, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi all,
>      While I agree with the sentiment that the proposed updated text is
> more appropriate, we are on a slippery slope as to this being errata.
> This is a technical change and not fixing an error.  Can someone point
> to a discussion where a reference to 6438 and stateless methods occurred
> and there was consensus to put that in 1.3.5?
> 
>      If not, this seems more like a new draft to obsolete 6936.

Good point. How about "hold for document update" to resolve the
open errata report?

Mea culpa, because I didn't ever review that part of
draft-ietf-6man-udpzero.

    Brian C

> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> On 4/21/15 4:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> I also support approving this Errata.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> [e-mail] skrev den 2015-04-21 10:09:
>>> I agree with this update. I think it is a useful correction.
>>>
>>> Gorry
>>>
>>>> I agree with Brian's update, I think stateless LB is better.
>>>> (Strangely and coincidently, my OpenWRT router reported I received one
>>>> today:
>>>> [ Â 422.320000] IPv6: udp checksum is 0
>>>>
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,Mark.
>>>>       From: joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>
>>>>  To: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>  Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 14:46
>>>>  Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6936 (4341)
>>>>
>>>> anyone care to comment?
>>>>
>>>> joel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/20/15 9:35 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6936,
>>>>> "Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero
>>>>> Checksums".
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6936&eid=4341
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Type: Technical
>>>>> Reported by: Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Section: 1.3.5
>>>>>
>>>>> Original Text
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> The ingress of a tunnel seeking to provide good
>>>>> entropy in the flow label field would therefore need to create a
>>>>> random flow label value and keep corresponding state so that all
>>>>> packets that were associated with a flow would be consistently given
>>>>> the same flow label.  Although possible, this complexity may not be
>>>>> desirable in a tunnel ingress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Corrected Text
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> The ingress of a tunnel seeking to provide good
>>>>> entropy in the flow label field would therefore need to create a
>>>>> pseudo-random flow label value using a stateless method
>>>>> as described in [RFC6438] so that all
>>>>> packets that were associated with a flow would be consistently given
>>>>> the same flow label.
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes
>>>>> -----
>>>>> It is incorrect that a stateful method is needed, and presumably that
>>>>> was the complexity judged undesirable. Also, we shouldn't say "random"
>>>>> when we mean "pseudo-random."
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC6936 (draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-12)
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Title              : Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6
>>>>> UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums
>>>>> Publication Date    : April 2013
>>>>> Author(s)Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  : G. Fairhurst, M. Westerlund
>>>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>>>> Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
>>>>> Area                : Internet
>>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>>> Verifying Party    : IESG
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>