Re: [lisp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7052 (4256)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gregg,

On 3/9/15 1:09 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote:
> 
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/6/15 12:58 PM, Gregg Schudel (gschudel) wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Brian Haberman
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It turns out that the discussion during review was with the
>>>> upper limit. I can't find any reference to discussions on the
>>>> lower limit.  Authors?
>>> 
>>> going back to check Brian - it was a while ago.
>> 
>> Have we gotten anywhere with this check?  The erratum is sitting in
>> a less-than-useful state at this point.
>> 
>> Regards, Brian
> 
> 
> Hi Brian I’m really sorry about droppng this.
> 
> 
> I’ve checked internal notes, authors, etc. I cannot find any record
> of (nor do we recall) us discussing “minimum length.” Looking at it
> now, the value of “5” in RFC7052 does not match any “real minimum
> length” that we can see.
> 
> Further, (in discussing with Isidor), the ability to return
> unspecified as an empty address, hence “0” length, makes sense.
> 
> So, again - the errate makes sense. No evidence is available to
> indicate otherwise.
> 

Isidor and I discussed whether changing all the lower bounds of 5 to 0
made sense or if there was a smaller subset of variables that should be
changed.

Isidor insisted on lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength being
changed, but there are potentially others.

I do not want to see a slew of errata roll in over the years changing
one variable's lower limit at a time.  Keeping in mind, a change for one
variable actually requires a change to two variables (the affected
variable and its corresponding Length variable).

Can the WG identify all the MIB variables that it wants changed with
this erratum?

Regards,
Brian