[mpls] [Errata Verified] RFC7439 (4595)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 08 February 2016 19:26 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 979181B3223; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:26:13 -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 agA45d8P6Tiv; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:26:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257451B3221; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:26:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 53E0A180209; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:25:43 -0800 (PST)
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, wesley.george@twcable.com, cpignata@cisco.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160208192543.53E0A180209@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/F6_QirGJ6YK9yLjlcZ9ZMCPO7N4>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [mpls] [Errata Verified] 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 19:26:13 -0000

The following errata report has been verified 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

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date Reported: 2016-01-15
Verified by: Deborah Brungard (IESG)

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.

--------------------------------------
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