[mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7439 (4595)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 15 January 2016 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D95E1B3207 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:09:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 7CAHwsQhP7tX for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DE71B320A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C298C180206; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:08:45 -0800 (PST)
To: wesley.george@twcable.com, cpignata@cisco.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, loa@pi.nu, swallow@cisco.com, rcallon@juniper.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160115200845.C298C180206@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/5o40PRTUteBonbjnVmnO7l78PXg>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7439 (4595)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 20:09:45 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7439,
"Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7439&eid=4595

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Section: 3.5

Original Text
-------------
   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
   MplsLsrIdentifier.  These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE
   MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802]
   and the FRR extension [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions
   (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC]
   tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as
   obsolete.

Corrected Text
--------------
   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId.  This textual
   conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the 
   GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension
   [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for 
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries
   to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.

Notes
-----
Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier.
It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and MplsLsrIdentifier." It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete."

Note that the second quote refers to just one TC.

Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that the LSR Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP system is v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only. 

Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows no
change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as obsolete.

Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been abandoned in state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an error we could call a typo.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7439 (draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks
Publication Date    : January 2015
Author(s)           : W. George, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed.
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG