Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101)

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 13 April 2020 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C833A168A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 07:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 FJoe5W_0yhR7 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22FD3A1689 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [122.2.101.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAC4132109F; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, naikumar@cisco.com, cpignata@cisco.com, swallow.ietf@gmail.com, nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com, sriganeshkini@gmail.com, mach.chen@huawei.com, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, n.leymann@telekom.de, tsaad.net@gmail.com
Cc: alexander.vainshtein@ecitele.com, mpls@ietf.org
References: <20200413111718.3C7F4F40721@rfc-editor.org>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:15:45 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200413111718.3C7F4F40721@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/09PXo1L3kfC3AdyYqBsiAVapMJA>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:15:59 -0000

Sasha, et.al.,


The errata is mostly right, but the suggested corrected text is not
entirely correct.

Also this seems to have crept in while the document was in the RFC Ed
Queue, and should  have been discovered during AUTH48. As the Shepherd
I should have captured this.

The text that the IESG approved is correct, 
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-13, it stands out very clearly in the diff.

On 13/04/2020 19:17, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8287,
> "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6101
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein <alexander.vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> 
> Section: 7.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>     The network node that advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible
>     for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with the Post Office
>     Protocol (POP) operation type for the Node Segment ID, regardless of
>     whether or not Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) is enabled.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>     The network node that advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible
>     for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with the   POP) operation type for
>     the Node Segment ID, regardless of whether or not Penultimate Hop Popping
>     (PHP) is enabled.

FURTHER CORRECTED TEXT

    The network node which advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible
    for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with pop operation type for
    Node Segment ID, regardless of whether penultimate hop popping (PHP)
    is enabled or not.

It should also be noted that the the next paragraph also have the same 
issue.

CURRENT TEXT

    The network node that is immediately downstream of the node that
    advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating the
    FEC Stack Change sub-TLV for POP operation for the Adjacency Segment
    ID.

CORRECTED TEXT

    The network node that is immediate downstream of the node which
    advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating FEC
    Stack Change sub-TLV for pop operation for Adjacency Segment ID.

Notes
-----
The "pop" in pop operation is not an abbreviation or acronym, it is is
the name of the operation type, the other operation type is "push".

I recommend that this Errata is held waiting for a future revision of
the RFC.


/Loa
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Expansion of POP to "Post Office Protocol" in the context of this document is wrong.
> 
> 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.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8287 (draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-13)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
> Publication Date    : December 2017
> Author(s)           : N. Kumar, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed., G. Swallow, N. Akiya, S. Kini, M. Chen
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 

-- 

My mail server it under a DOS attack, we are working to fix it but it
may take some time.


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64