Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2019 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 8CF0A120059 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 jbd5FocabxTm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (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 1273A120090 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id w5so454222pjh.11 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XzQzpS2szKG952MsE2CPWTrUpwOE4JJGyBRWrxtqg5M=; b=W9LU+TrN1Y/dWLiCvi3swIk4Nu+ebJiYrhrwrBG7Q+sIdZJxfIrmd1eSw8bXRWYTPd QQhLLr4yFBGNYzgFrCOkOVifw37aCnOjlEnvlbQ/DPUC6BAWsRx7iWUKHWQ0uWNpxVVb qKIvhA3wWf/Jo7X1SCcaX93K7wtGk+n2qWQrBf0ASuQ5CryrP+/RYGQf8PbPUKIbkWTt AKM8z/fvMGytFm4uSVzzNClAfWPEhxR0qVJ97oavDdH80BU8n1U95Cl4dBsQ7Tdpgc1r NDk1rPdjD50QYjrGgaLTJKxqM3D1m2ePM9YwkSE4obsLFwRrpGsQHhmd/o1/gTkj523h P/og==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XzQzpS2szKG952MsE2CPWTrUpwOE4JJGyBRWrxtqg5M=; b=evto5WpRJ9UMbZcsvvykxN+GyQuLsrGHsVTlVJs2u6Y3PSplafJiTqdFzd2lnf66V0 jDzToHdtjvQSX0ATHD51oLRHznm1LONc9PLy8tYppQ0tYusQguSF7wX/l3mc+TpsJ5e1 4xoMSxZ3JZM79Wb74wbfTOraX2Y0WXJAy9bAx7xUqa7RunZrwJOBugM0XM2RrBCPS/g4 uHARwCmeLynS8XrmcEL3Q/5ugtdoTtAek354VUHI/H9mHWTThZF2BQ8WONnzFr5yjZqv BNZs++GJSqSYq6lX4SRQyPA/5WK5E7bDHJsjXqVc2nLkZSXQkbhHDLH6iOBDWzNg54RC KFKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpp+K5hcv/PJNbH03LkshWCcoEakioryAC9fV2mTuVGqtDYohk kGicV9+3srEFwtU7gXyaoGx7kvGX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHU7ofD8cRmuXYxsiyujINRO/a/6lb4Y7mMBeQJnSZWOwKQvqI3AprUmZml1IRsQ75tWZhhg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:265:: with SMTP id 92mr7431335plc.42.1576124570130; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (228.147.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.147.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z13sm4049225pjz.15.2019.12.11.20.22.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <20191211032724.46F77F406F3@rfc-editor.org> <ead110b0-3198-2894-3c63-9362276b0cc4@gmail.com> <cffb0a8e-2119-a474-4dce-f3b5a67dac47@si6networks.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bfa67fe0-850d-941d-a446-559a2907da25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:22:44 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cffb0a8e-2119-a474-4dce-f3b5a67dac47@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XBZ4QdSNI20RUQW1SVMtkQ4bkF0>
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, 12 Dec 2019 04:22:52 -0000

Yes, a note that updating Segments Left is legal would fix it I think.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 12-Dec-19 15:50, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 11/12/19 21:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 11-Dec-19 16:27, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>>    Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header, or a 
>>>    Destination Options header preceding a Routing header) are not processed,
>>>    inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the
>>>    packet reaches the final destination node (or each of the set of final
>>>    destination nodes, in the case of multicast). 
>>>
>>>    For packets that do not include a Routing Header, the final destination
>>>    node is identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. 
>>>    For packets that include a Routing Header, the final destination node is 
>>>    identified by the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header only when
>>>    the Segments Left field of the Routing Header is 0. 
>>
>> I'm seeing a problem here. The Segments Left field of the routing header
>> must be decremented at the end of each segment. That's processing the
>> RH in my book, and it will occur when Segments Left >0.
> 
> It seems the problem is not related with this text, but rather with the
> fact that it omits RH-specific text as for the HbHO and DO headers.
> 
> i.e., HbhO, DO that precedes a routing header, and the routing header
> are exceptions to the rule.
> 
> (The text regarding SL==0 is because it's essentially impossible to tell
> where in the type-specific data of a RH the final destination will be).
> 
> So.. how about if the text above is expanded to "Extension headers
> (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header, the ROuting Header, or a
> Destination Options header preceding a Routing header)"
> 
> ...and then RH-specific text (similar as for HbH or DO that precedes a
> RH) is added?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
>