[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5942 (6417)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 29 January 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 012883A12C1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jFu-PNyoKOcN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBFD13A12C2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 729FAF40715; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:44:19 -0800 (PST)
To: shemant@cisco.com, wbeebee@cisco.com, erik.nordmark@oracle.com, ek.ietf@gmail.com, evyncke@cisco.com, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5942 (6417)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mellon@fugue.com, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210129204419.729FAF40715@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mclSTBtee1142XA2lGLC7nt41eU>
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 20:44:29 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5942,
"IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6417

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
In bullet item 4, the behavior for hosts when the default router list is empty is specified in a way that means that no prefix can ever be considered on-link.  4.b says that address resolution (which I take to mean neighbor discovery) should not be performed for any non-link-local address.

It is entirely possible for an on-link, non-default router to advertise an on-link prefix. In this case, the prefix should be considered on-link, and address resolution should be permitted. I don't see a way to read the text to allow this.

Corrected Text
--------------
I think the confusion is in 4.b, which should read:

The host MUST NOT perform address resolution for non-link-local addresses that are not known to be on-link as described in section 3, part 1.

Notes
-----
I don't know if the problem is that "non-link-local" should have been "non-on-link" or if the authors just weren't taking RFC4191 into consideration, but in the presence of RFC4191, requiring a default router before a prefix can be considered on-link renders perfectly valid configurations non-functional.

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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5942 (draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes
Publication Date    : July 2010
Author(s)           : H. Singh, W. Beebee, E. Nordmark
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : IPv6 Maintenance
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG