Re: [manet] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6130 (4866)

Justin Dean <justin.dean@nrl.navy.mil> Wed, 25 January 2017 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <justin.dean@nrl.navy.mil>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ACC129A62; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:48:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 nXLBYdfhemIV; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ccs.nrl.navy.mil (mx0.ccs.nrl.navy.mil [IPv6:2001:480:20:118:118::211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1501129A5B; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 08:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fips236155.nrl.navy.mil (fips236155.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.236.155]) by ccs.nrl.navy.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v0PGmIBI025756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:48:18 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Justin Dean <justin.dean@nrl.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <20170125163421.64743B81C21@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:49:44 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6ADE8DB4-9803-4611-866B-09BE92D9C974@nrl.navy.mil>
References: <20170125163421.64743B81C21@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-CCS-MailScanner: No viruses found.
X-CCS-MailScanner-Info: See: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/ccs/support/email
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/-lWsq5geXmTSiM982kXjnljrWa0>
Cc: nmalykh@gmail.com, T.Clausen@computer.org, chris.dearlove@baesystems.com, manet@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: [manet] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC6130 (4866)
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:48:28 -0000

I agree with Chris, the fix is to remove the longer paragraph.


> On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:34 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been held for document update 
> for RFC6130, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)". 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6130&eid=4866
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Held for Document Update
> Type: Editorial
> 
> Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@gmail.com>
> Date Reported: 2016-11-15
> Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG)
> 
> Section: 4.3.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   o  For each MANET interface, within every time interval equal to the
>      corresponding REFRESH_INTERVAL, sent HELLO messages MUST
>      collectively include all of the relevant information in the
>      corresponding Link Set and the Neighbor Information Base.  Note
>      that when determining whether to include information in a HELLO
>      message, the sender MUST consider all times up to the latest time
>      when it may send its next HELLO message on this MANET interface.
> 
>   o  For each MANET interface, within every time interval equal to the
>      corresponding REFRESH_INTERVAL, sent HELLO messages MUST
>      collectively include all of the relevant information in the
>      corresponding Link Set and the Neighbor Information Base.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   o  For each MANET interface, within every time interval equal to the
>      corresponding REFRESH_INTERVAL, sent HELLO messages MUST
>      collectively include all of the relevant information in the
>      corresponding Link Set and the Neighbor Information Base.  Note
>      that when determining whether to include information in a HELLO
>      message, the sender MUST consider all times up to the latest time
>      when it may send its next HELLO message on this MANET interface.
> 
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The second statement is already contained in the first one.
> 
> =====
> From Christopher Dearlove (author):
> 
> it is the other paragraph that should be deleted. Because the paragraph following the two quoted paragraphs, which I copy here:
> 
>   o  When determining whether to include a given piece of neighbor
>      information in a HELLO message, it is not sufficient to consider
>      whether that information has been sent in the interval of length
>      REFRESH_INTERVAL up to the current time.  Instead, the router MUST
>      consider the interval of length REFRESH_INTERVAL that will end at
>      the latest possible time at which the next HELLO message will be
>      sent on this MANET interface.  (Normally, this will be
>      HELLO_INTERVAL past the current time, but MAY be earlier if this
>      router elects to divide its neighbor information among more than
>      one HELLO message in order to reduce the size of its HELLO
>      messages.)  All neighbor information MUST be sent in this
>      interval, i.e., the router MUST ensure that this HELLO message
>      includes all neighbor information that has not already been
>      included in any HELLO messages sent since the start of this
>      interval (normally, the current time - (REFRESH_INTERVAL -
>      HELLO_INTERVAL)).
> 
> contains the additional information in the longer paragraph, expanded to explain what it means.
> 
> Thus the resolution is to delete the first paragraph:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   o  For each MANET interface, within every time interval equal to the
>      corresponding REFRESH_INTERVAL, sent HELLO messages MUST
>      collectively include all of the relevant information in the
>      corresponding Link Set and the Neighbor Information Base.  Note
>      that when determining whether to include information in a HELLO
>      message, the sender MUST consider all times up to the latest time
>      when it may send its next HELLO message on this MANET interface.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6130 (draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-15)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
> Publication Date    : April 2011
> Author(s)           : T. Clausen, C. Dearlove, J. Dean
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG