Re: Errata on RFC8200

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

To put these errata in context, section 4.5 of rfc8200 defines:

>    original packet:
> 
>    +------------------+-------------------------+---//----------------+
>    |  Per-Fragment    | Extension & Upper-Layer |   Fragmentable      |
>    |    Headers       |       Headers           |      Part           |
>    +------------------+-------------------------+---//----------------+

The text then defines the Fragmentable Part as being separate to the 
Extension & Upper-Layer Headers part.

Comparing this against rfc2460, it's clear that the Fragmentable Part 
defined in section 4.5 of rfc2460 includes both the rfc8200 Fragmentable 
Part and the rfc8200 Extension & Upper-Layer Headers.  This is important 
because if someone implements ipv6 fragmentation as specified in 8200, 
it will not interoperate with the rfc2460 spec.

On this basis, errata 5170, 5171 and 5172 should be verified.

Regarding the others:

5173: is a typo and should be verified
5256: oops, cut-n-paste typo. Should be verified.
5259: this is a nit.
5506: looks ok.

Nick

Fernando Gont wrote on 07/06/2019 13:39:
> Ping?
> 
> 
> On 3/1/19 04:01, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> There's currently errata in the "Reported" state for RFC8200. Some is
>> mostly editorial, but the Fragmentation-related part seems to warrant a fix.
>>
>> So I'm curious about how to proceed here.
>>
>> I guess, the first part would be to process the errata (confirm it if
>> it's accurate, since it's still in "reported" state). Tehn I guess one
>> option might be to leave it as such, while another could be to do a
>> quick rev, specifically targetting the errata that has been reported so far?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> 
>