Re: [Isis-wg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6822 (4521)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Alexander -

The word "circuit" in both ISO 10589 and RFC 5309 is consistently used to refer to the underlying media type. The fact that in one instance in RFC 5309 the word is used inconsistently doesn't invalidate the many other uses.

Further, since the preceding section of RFC 6822 (2.6.1) is entitled "Interoperability Issues on Broadcast Circuits" it is hard for me to understand how you could think Section 2.6.2 includes a LAN operating in point-to-point mode.

However, it is hard for me to find much enthusiasm for arguing about this. It seems clear at this point that there is a need for a BIS draft - in part because of the filed Errata - but also because of other issues discussed off-list - all of which will soon be made public. Please plan to review the BIS when it is published and let us know if you still have concerns.

Thanx.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:13 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); RFC Errata System; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi);
> [e-mail]; Abhay Roy (akr); David Ward (wardd);
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana (aretana);
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6822 (4521)
> 
> There is ambiguity what is mean for "circuit"? Is it broadcast vs point-to-point
> media? Or is it type of circuit from point of view of IS-IS? For latter point-to-
> point media and point-to-point over LAN both are point-to-point circuits. I.e.
> once broadcast link is configured as point-to-point, it is treated by IS-IS as
> point-to-point circuit, and procedures for point-to-point (like Hello protocol)
> are followed for this circuit.
> 
> Section 4 of RFC 5309 states:
> 
> The idea is very simple: provide a configuration mechanism to inform the IGP
> that the circuit is type point-to-point, irrespective of the physical media type.
> For the IGP, this implies that it will send protocol packets with the
> appropriate point-to-point information, and it expects to receive protocol
> packets as they would be received on a point-to-point circuit.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On 11/03/2015 08:42 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > The changes proposed in this errata are not needed.
> >
> > Section 2.6.2 is entitled " Interoperability Using Point-to-Point Circuits".
> > Broadcast media is NOT a "point-to-point circuit".
> >
> > The Introduction of RFC 5309 states:
> >
> > " Point-to-point and broadcast are the two predominant circuit types
> >     used by link state routing protocols such as IS-IS ..."
> >
> >   Therefore mention of RFC 5309 in this section is neither required nor
> appropriate. The errata should be rejected.
> >
> >     Les
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 11:52 PM
> >> To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
> >> [e-mail]; Abhay Roy (akr); David Ward (wardd);
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana (aretana);
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; rfc-editor@rfc-
> >> editor.org
> >> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6822 (4521)
> >>
> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6822, "IS-IS
> >> Multi- Instance".
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> You may review the report below and at:
> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6822&eid=4521
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Type: Technical
> >> Reported by: Alexander Okonnikov <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Section: 2.6.2
> >>
> >> Original Text
> >> -------------
> >>     In order for an MI-RTR to interoperate over a point-to-point
> >>     circuit with a router that does NOT support this extension, the
> >>     MI-RTR MUST NOT send IS-IS PDUs for instances other than IID #0
> >>     over the point-to-point circuit as these PDUs may affect the state
> >>     of IID #0 in the neighbor.
> >>
> >> Corrected Text
> >> --------------
> >>     Note: The procedure below should not be used when MI-RTR is
> >>     operating in point-to-point mode over broadcast circuit
> >>     [RFC 5309].
> >>
> >>     In order for an MI-RTR to interoperate over a point-to-point
> >>     circuit with a router that does NOT support this extension, the
> >>     MI-RTR MUST NOT send IS-IS PDUs for instances other than IID #0
> >>     over the point-to-point circuit as these PDUs may affect the state
> >>     of IID #0 in the neighbor.
> >>
> >> Notes
> >> -----
> >> This is not needed to follow procedure described in 2.6.2 while
> >> operating in point-to-point mode over broadcast circuit. New MAC
> >> addresses are used for PDUs of non-zero instances, hence standard
> >> instance will not be compromised.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC6822 (draft-ietf-isis-mi-08)
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Title               : IS-IS Multi-Instance
> >> Publication Date    : December 2012
> >> Author(s)           : S. Previdi, Ed., L. Ginsberg, M. Shand, A. Roy, D. Ward
> >> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> >> Source              : IS-IS for IP Internets
> >> Area                : Routing
> >> Stream              : IETF
> >> Verifying Party     : IESG