Re: [mpls] to be rejected - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5586 (4364)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Sasha,

I think the rationale is that the wg chairs don't see this as an
errata, but rather as a change.

Not being an errata, it seems odd to use the errata system to maintain a
non-errata.

/Loa

On 2015-05-13 14:14, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Deborah, Loa and all,
> I accept the decision to reject the errata, of course.
>
> Revisiting this issue if/when the document is updated is OK with me, even if must admit that  I do not understand the difference between this and the disposition of errata that says "take into account when the document is updated" (or something like this).
>
> I would just like to clarify that my interest in the issue was triggered by a question I've received from the field, when a person examining some capture as asked me:
> "Why is the TTL in the LSE containing GAL set to 2" Is this standard?"
>
> I have looked up RFC 5586, and I did not find a straightforward answer to this question.
>
> Regards,
> Sasha
>
> Office: [phone]
> Cell:      [phone]
> Email:   [e-mail]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:58 PM
> To: Loa Andersson; RFC Errata System; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: to be rejected - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5586 (4364)
>
> Will do -
> Thanks Loa-
> Deborah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:59 AM
> To: RFC Errata System; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: to be rejected - Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5586 (4364)
>
> Folks,
>
> MPLS chairs have discussed the errata.
>
> We feel that it is a change to the document rather than an errata, on that ground it should be rejected.
>
> We think that the appropriate would be to revisit this if the document is updated.
>
> I'm always uncertain of the procedures around accepting/rejecting errata, but I guess it requires AD decision.
>
> Deborah,
>
> Can you mark this a "rejected"?
>
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2015-05-12 16:14, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5586, "MPLS
>> Generic Associated Channel".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5586&eid=4364
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein
>> <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 4.2.1
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>      The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains the GAL follows
>>      the definition and processing rules specified in [RFC3443].
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> The value of the  Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains
>> the GAL follows is irrelevant as long as it exceeds 1. (Setting this
>> value to 0 or 1 SHOULD be avoided because it could result in trapping
>> the OAM packets in with wrong reason: "TTL expiration" instead of "GAL
>> encountered").
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The processing rules specific in RFC 3443 deal with handling TTL in the LSE of a labeled packets that are forwarded based on this LSE, or with setting the TTL value by a LER pushing a label stack on an unlabeled packet.
>> As per the last para in Section 4.2, LSRs and LERs MUST NOT forward packets based on the LSE that contains GAL, hence these rules are mainly not applicable.
>>
>> 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 (IESG) can log in to
>> change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC5586 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-06)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : MPLS Generic Associated Channel
>> Publication Date    : June 2009
>> Author(s)           : M. Bocci, Ed., M. Vigoureux, Ed., S. Bryant, Ed.
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]