[Lsr] [Errata Rejected] RFC5185 (6506)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 17 May 2021 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2213A46E4; Mon, 17 May 2021 15:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 dbEmLL2nLFak; Mon, 17 May 2021 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
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 1B2E43A46E3; Mon, 17 May 2021 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5062AF4079B; Mon, 17 May 2021 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: ketant@cisco.com, sina@nuovasystems.com, ppsenak@cisco.com, acee@redback.com, aoswal@redback.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210517220818.5062AF4079B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 15:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/1PpGFkiduzOMtU7fYuC66qpo_3M>
Subject: [Lsr] [Errata Rejected] RFC5185 (6506)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 22:08:25 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5185,
"OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6506

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>
Date Reported: 2021-04-02
Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG)

Section: 2.7

Original Text
-------------
   Multi-area adjacencies are announced as point-to-point links.  Once
   the router's multi-area adjacency reaches the FULL state, it will be
   added as a link type 1 to the Router Link State Advertisement (LSA)
   with:

      Link ID = Remote's Router ID

      Link Data = Neighbor's IP Address or IfIndex (if the underlying
      interface is unnumbered).

   Unlike numbered point-to-point links, no type 3 link is advertised
   for multi-area adjacencies.


Corrected Text
--------------
   Multi-area adjacencies are announced as point-to-point links.  Once
   the router's multi-area adjacency reaches the FULL state, it will be
   added as a link type 1 to the Router Link State Advertisement (LSA)
   with:

      Link ID = Remote's Router ID

      Link Data = Router interface's IP Address or IfIndex (if the underlying
      interface is unnumbered).

   Unlike numbered point-to-point links, no type 3 link is advertised
   for multi-area adjacencies.


Notes
-----
The encoding of Link Data as specified in RFC5185 is not consistent with the base OSPF specification in RFC2328. This has resulted in different behaviors in deployed implementations where some follow RFC2328 (i.e. the corrected text) while others follow the Original text of RFC5185 leading to interop issues.

More importantly, for implementations of RFC5185, it is not possible to determine the Neighbor's interface IfIndex unless some additional mechanisms (that have not been specified or referenced by RFC5185) are implemented - viz. RFC8510.

This topic has been discussed in the LSR WG recently and this errata is being raised to track this issue : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/iL85WkrqhI17wUrxd-WozMQvKtE/
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
As discussed here (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/9IAkRCbZN39loWcwKjtNWfUW_qA/) this would be a technical change vs. the WG consensus when the document was progressed, and should be rejected (see https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata/ #7). The appropriate way to pursue this looks to be an update or bis.


--------------------------------------
RFC5185 (draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency
Publication Date    : May 2008
Author(s)           : S. Mirtorabi, P. Psenak, A. Lindem, Ed., A. Oswal
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG