Re: problem with inetCidrRouteDest/inetCidrRoutePfxLen consistency check language in draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-06.txt

C. M. Heard wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> If interpreted literally, the following language in the DESCRIPTION
> clauses for inetCidrRouteDest and inetCidrRoutePfxLen seems to
> prohibit having a non-zero zone index in inetCidrRouteDest:
> 
>             The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
>             inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent.  When the value
>             of inetCidrRouteDest is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
>             of x with the value of the mask formed from the
>             corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
>             equal to x.  If not, then the index pair is not
>             consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
>             returned on SET or CREATE requests.
> 
> This is so because the mask formed from inetCidrRoutePfxLen is
> contiguous and does not include the zone index part.  Thus, the
> bitwise logical-AND of the value of inetCidrRouteDest and the value
> of the mask formed from the corresponding index object
> inetCidrRoutePfxLen will necessarily have zeroes in the zone index
> position.
> 
> It seems to me that an easy fix for this problem would be to alter
> the text to exclude the zone index from the comparison.  Here is
> my suggestion:
> 
>             The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
>             inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent.  When the value
>             of inetCidrRouteDest (excluding the zone index, if one
>             is present) is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
>             of x with the value of the mask formed from the
>             corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
>             equal to x.  If not, then the index pair is not
>             consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
>             returned on SET or CREATE requests.

After reading through the thread again and looking at the text, I agree
that it is wrong wrt scoped addresses.  I like your suggested text with
one caveat.  I believe we need to include some words in the DESCRIPTION
that talk about what to do when a zone index is present in the address.
I need to think some more about what that text should be and where it
should go.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------