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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 14 April 2020 05:48 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 7BC1D3A0CE9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:48:13 -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 kIwDWiU4KVda for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:48:10 -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 902F73A0CE8 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:48:10 -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 05E273210DF; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:48:02 +0200 (CEST)
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "naikumar@cisco.com" <naikumar@cisco.com>, "cpignata@cisco.com" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "swallow.ietf@gmail.com" <swallow.ietf@gmail.com>, "nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com" <nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com>, "sriganeshkini@gmail.com" <sriganeshkini@gmail.com>, "mach.chen@huawei.com" <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "martin.vigoureux@nokia.com" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "n.leymann@telekom.de" <n.leymann@telekom.de>, "tsaad.net@gmail.com" <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <20200413111718.3C7F4F40721@rfc-editor.org> <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu> <AM0PR0302MB3217C677F6D52AA10CB63D5B9DDD0@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <eb46c9ba-c3c6-7f6c-3e60-2712fa7aed8d@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:47:59 +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: <AM0PR0302MB3217C677F6D52AA10CB63D5B9DDD0@AM0PR0302MB3217.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/56J8TqC8e7hbm1qnORbWcY2GD34>
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: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 05:48:14 -0000

Sasha,

On 13/04/2020 22:22, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Loa,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> 
> There is a typo in the proposed new text (an extra closing parenthesis 
> ")" after "POP").

I hope you saw that that I want to change "POP" operation to pop 
operation at two places.
> 
> And the fact that the unnecessary expansion has been added by the RFC 
> Editor adds new meaning to the term "Editorial Errara"ūüėČ...

I can appreciate the joke, but I'm much more amazed with how much the
RFC Editor in general improve document. And error like thi should really
have been captured by the authors and shepherd.

/Loa
> 
> 
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2020, 17:15
> *To:* RFC Errata System; 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; mpls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8287 (6101)
> 
> 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://clicktime.symantec.com/3QENn98e7GXU6Ef6sHmBXV6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6101
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains 
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have 
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and 
> then delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________

-- 

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