Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6936 (4341)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

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.

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
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>