Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Deborah, ail,

In-line please. 

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Mar 2021, at 05:47, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Duane for user feedback - much appreciated! As you know, those most familiar with a technology, often do not see the same as someone first-time reading. Usually we rely on our friendly ADs from other IETF Areas or expert RFC editors to do a final scrub during publication - and some are quite scrutinizing! I don't think this would have passed today's IESG😊
> 
> But as Stewart notes, given one does have the context of the sentences for the meaning, this is more editorial than technical.
> 
> The RFC viewing has much improved and we now can view with verified errata:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc3031.html
> 
> I'd suggest, doing an editorial errata as Adrian suggests. If you are happy with his proposal - and the MPLS chairs agree - I can swap this over to an editorial and verify. As I'll be stepping down as AD next week, if can let me know in the next few days, I'll do immediately. If more time is needed, it will be for Martin to approve. Note - we have Adrian's list (thanks Adrian!) - if more are identified later - can always do another errata.
> 
> Duane - Ok? MPLS Chairs - Ok?

I seriously doubt that this necessary. After all this is a question that we never once have had to answer, it seems that the context in every case is clear.

However, as an editorial errata to to be hold for a 3031bis, I guess it is harmless. 

/Loa
> 
> Deborah
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:46 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I looked through this and reread 3031 (if may have been a few years).
> 
> While I can agree that there is "potential for confusion" in the use of "L2"
> and "L3", I agree with Stewart that not many people have reported being
> confused in the last 20 years (happy birthday, RFC 3031!).
> 
> Perhaps an easier fix (if a fix is needed at all - I don't believe it is) is
> to remove the abbreviations "L2" and "L3". 
> 
> For "L2"
> 2.3 Remove L2
> 3.23 s/L2/layer 2/ twice
> 
> For "L3"
> 2.2 s/L3/layer 3/ three times
> 2.3 Remove L3
> 3.17 s/L3/layer 3/ 
> 4.15 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.1.1.2 s/L3/layer 3/ twice
> 5.1.2.2 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.1.3 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.1.4 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.1.4.2 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.1.5 s/L3/layer 3/ four times
> 5.1.5.1 s/L3/layer 3/
> 5.2.2 s/L3/layer 3/
> 
> Maybe pop that list of changes in the report, mark it as Editorial, and move
> on?
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: 04 March 2021 03:43
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450)
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3031,
> "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6450__;!!BhdT!2-7fS0CMjWs9n-bXsviC8j9-l7nAesqsNNgwryAxWA5laUCob4MKYTYMnuK6s74$ 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Duane L. Anderson <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> 2.2. Terminology defines the terms
> 
>        Layer 2         layer 2 the protocol layer under layer 3 
>                        (which therefore offers the services used by layer
> 3)
>        Layer 3         the protocol layer at which IP and its associated 
>                        routing protocols operate
> 
> 2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations defines 
> 
>        L2              Layer 2
>        L3              Layer 3
> 
> However, in 3.14. Scope and Uniqueness of Labels, 4.3. Label Stacks and
> Implicit Peering, 4.5. LSP Trees as Multipoint-to-Point Entities, and 4.6.
> LSP Tunneling between BGP Border Routers, L1, L2 and L3 are used as
> differentiating names for certain labels attached to packets. 
> 
> Of course, in 3.23. Time-to-Live (TTL), L2 is used to refer to layer 2 frame
> header and to a layer 2 switch, which is correct. 
> 
> However, in 4.3. Label Stacks and Implicit Peering, the term level 1 is used
> to refer to the LIFO (stack) ordinal number of a label then named L1 and
> given a protocol layer 2 protocol of layer 2 (L2). Furthermore, labels named
> L2 and then L1 are pushed onto the stack of labels prefixed to the packet.
> To top it all off the packet's stack attribute as protocol level 2 (L2). 
> 
> Of course, in 3.17. LSP Next Hop, 4.1.5. The Implicit NULL Label, 5.1.1.2.
> PushConditional, 5.1.1.4. PulledConditional, 5.1.2.2. RequestWhenNeeded,
> 5.1.3. Upstream LSR: NotAvailable Procedure, 5.1.4. Upstream LSR: Release
> Procedure, 5.1.4.2. NoReleaseOnChange, 5.1.5. Upstream LSR: labelUse
> Procedure, 5.2.2. Schemes for LSRs that do not Support Label Merging, refer
> to L3 meaning level 3, which is correct. 
> 
> Furthermore, in 3.1. Labels, 3.2. Upstream and Downstream LSRs, 3.4. Label
> Assignment and Distribution, 3.5. Attributes of a Label Binding, 3.14. Scope
> and Uniqueness of Labels, 4.1.2.2. Distributing Labels, 5.1.5. Upstream LSR:
> labelUse Procedure, 5.1.5.2. UseIfLoopNotDetected, 5.1.6. Downstream LSR:
> Withdraw Procedure
> 
> * L is used as a name for a certain label attached to packet, and 
> 
> * L is used as a arbitrary value assigned to a label attached to a packet
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> I have not provided any corrected text as I've literally "highlighted" 44
> places in a pdf format file of RFC 3031 that are ambiguous. 
> 
> As there is no facility to attach a file to this Report Errata for RFC3031
> form, i will send the file commented pdf file upon request. 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> My rational for highlighting (no pun intended) these problems is that the
> overloading of the L2, L3 abbreviations layer 2 and layer 3, with the names
> L1, L2, L3 and L for labels, plus the use of L1 and L2 as indexed names for
> the ordinal position of a label prefixed to a payload, then to use L2 and L3
> as to actually mean layer 2 and layer is uh ... sloppy. 
> 
> Honestly, I can't understand how RFC 3031 has been posted for twenty years
> and that it is on the Standards Track and no one has found these problems. 
> 
> Its similar to when someone publishes a mathematical treatise and use the
> same set of variable names {x, y, z, t} over and over again in different
> contexts spread throughout the paper. Its intractable and practically
> gibberish. 
> 
> I apologize if my criticism is harsh regarding this problem but I spent a
> considerable amount of my time reading this document trying to make sense of
> it before I realized that the fault is not mine but it is of the document.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC3031 (draft-ietf-mpls-arch-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
> Publication Date    : January 2001
> Author(s)           : E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!BhdT!2-7fS0CMjWs9n-bXsviC8j9-l7nAesqsNNgwryAxWA5laUCob4MKYTYMmj5Y50k$ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls