Re: [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (4866)
"Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 13:25 UTC
Return-Path: <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
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 7D489129600 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:25:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] 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 tL4_tFdKPJIV for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ukmta2.baesystems.com (ukmta2.baesystems.com [20.133.0.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE6FA129540 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:25:53 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,494,1473116400"; d="scan'208";a="45342883"
Received: from unknown (HELO baemasmds016.greenlnk.net) ([10.15.207.101]) by ukmta2.baesystems.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 13:25:51 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,494,1473116400"; d="scan'208";a="143365183"
Received: from glkxh0003v.greenlnk.net ([10.109.2.34]) by baemasmds016.greenlnk.net with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 13:25:49 +0000
Received: from GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net ([169.254.5.207]) by GLKXH0003V.GREENLNK.net ([10.109.2.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:25:48 +0000
From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "T.Clausen@computer.org" <T.Clausen@computer.org>, "jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil" <jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "aretana@cisco.com" <aretana@cisco.com>, "sratliff@idirect.net" <sratliff@idirect.net>, "bebemaster@gmail.com" <bebemaster@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (4866)
Thread-Index: AQHSPz7QwKWVnOH0MUGbpsCa0SXhr6DaBxtA
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:25:48 +0000
Message-ID: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D92480098@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net>
References: <20161115124935.820ECB80145@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161115124935.820ECB80145@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.109.62.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/N5oaE2N2ITIAVc9zgWfsxTdUgyU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:20:57 -0800
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>, "nmalykh@gmail.com" <nmalykh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] 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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:25:56 -0000
Author writing. Nikolai (to whom my thanks, and I expect that of my co-authors) has indeed spotted an error that the authors (and reviewers) missed after I don't know how many readings, but the resolution is not correct. Rather, 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. (I don't have my records to hand, but I strongly suspect we split the paragraph in two, expanded the second half - possibly in response to review comments - but failed to delete the original. 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: -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories __________________________________________________________________________ T: +44 (0)1245 242194 | E: chris.dearlove@baesystems.com BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. www.baesystems.com/ai BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451 Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP -----Original Message----- From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] Sent: 15 November 2016 12:50 To: T.Clausen@computer.org; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil; akatlas@gmail.com; db3546@att.com; aretana@cisco.com; sratliff@idirect.net; bebemaster@gmail.com Cc: nmalykh@gmail.com; manet@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (4866) ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. -------------------------------------------------------- The following errata report has been submitted 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 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@gmail.com> 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. 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. -------------------------------------- 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 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ********************************************************************
- [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (4866) RFC Errata System
- Re: [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [manet] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6130 (… Nikolai Malykh