Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6936 (4341)

[[e-mail]]

I wish to change my opinion also (SORRY): I prefer to hold.

To be clear:

* "random" was indeed intended to mean "pseudorandom".

* RFC6936 references ECMP [RFC6438 ] flow marking - seeking to say this
was desirable, but not always practical at present. This was written in
parallel with RFC6438.

* RFC6936 only used a stateful ECMP example. It would have been better to
also mention stateless mapping, there is no reason why this was not
included.

However - I do not think the Errata would change the meaning, and the
clarification is not "clear". Simply changing a couple of words confuses
the meaning of the surrounding paragraphs

Gorry

> On 22/04/2015 00:07, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Good point. How about "hold for document update" to resolve the
> open errata report?
>
> Mea culpa, because I didn't ever review that part of
> draft-ietf-6man-udpzero.
>
>     Brian C
>
>> 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
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>