Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477)

Link quality or link metric? And in the latter case, incoming or outgoing?

In the case of incoming link metric - which is the link metric this router is responsible for defining - there is this text in section 15.3.2.1 of RFC 7181

   o  For any Link Tuple, L_in_metric MAY be set to any representable
      value by a process outside this specification at any time.

So that case is covered.

In the case of link quality - section 4.4 of RFC 6130 - this is something only used locally. While there isn’t text directly equivalent to the above, as it's just local, nothing you do can cause an interoperability issue.

> On 1 May 2023, at 10:38, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Great... now we have spam in IETF Erratas???
> 
> By the way, I think I identified a 'problem' with how the combination
> of NHDP and OLSRv2 reacts to a suddenly breaking link... A coworker of
> mine identified during a test that the metric algorithm can NOT change
> the quality of a link when it suddenly breaks, which is quite annoying
> if you have a long Hello Validity time. Anyone interested in details?
> 
> Henning Rogge
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:44 PM Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Several chairs are reporting spam Erratta in their working groups.  If you see more of these that don’t make any sense no need to address them.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: manet <manet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Justin Dean
>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 10:39 AM
>> To: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
>> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; manet@ietf.org IETF <manet@ietf.org>; T.Clausen@computer.org; rajeevsurroach11@gmail.com; ronald.intvelt@tno.nl; andrew-ietf@liquid.tech; jgs@juniper.net
>> Subject: Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ah you are correct as nearly always, I just saw the MANET and NHDP and thought NHDP.  The RFC number didn't seem right but it's been too long.
>> 
>> Justin (not a co-author of 7466)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:17 AM Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I feel that as a mere author, I can only make suggestions to the RFC editor. But, yes, as suggestions go, it’s quite a strong one.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (Incidentally Justin, I think you’ve got this one confused with another one - this one just has Thomas and I as authors.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28 Apr 2023, at 15:10, Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "Suggest" rejecting seems a little too permissive.  Unless there was some issue with the reporting and there is more that just didn't get included it should be rejected.
>> 
>> Justin Dean (also Co-author of this RFC.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 9:04 AM Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There appears to be a problem here. First, there is no Section 7466. Second, the original and corrected texts are the same.
>> 
>> (Also, were this to be an erratum, the notes would be entirely inadequate.)
>> 
>> I suggest rejecting this erratum.
>> 
>> Christopher Dearlove
>> (Co-author of this RFC.)
>> 
>>> On 28 Apr 2023, at 13:02, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7466,
>>> "An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)".
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7477
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Technical
>>> Reported by: Rajeev Kumar Surroach <rajeevsurroach11@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Section: 7466
>>> 
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> 7466
>>> 
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> 7466
>>> 
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Solve the issue
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC7466 (draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization-04)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : An Optimization for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)
>>> Publication Date    : March 2015
>>> Author(s)           : C. Dearlove, T. Clausen
>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> Source              : Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
>>> Area                : Routing
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet