Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6790 (3431)

[Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>]

Jeff,

Good point.

Seeing the current IDR drama about "low order attribute bits", what's the
best way to state this in a future proof way?

How about:

"This is an optional, transitive BGP attribute of value 28.  The Length
MUST be set to 0 when sending (as the Value field is empty), and SHOULD be
ignored on receipt."

Kireeti


On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM, RFC Errata System <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6790,
> "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6790&eid=3431
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Jeff Wheeler <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 5.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> This is an optional, transitive BGP attribute of value 28.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> This is an optional, transitive BGP Attribute having Attribute Type Code
> 28, length 0, and no data.
>
> Notes
> -----
> "Value" is (slightly) confusing in this context.  The text should also
> explicitly specify that there isn't Attribute Data and thus the length will
> be 0.
>
> Ambiguity on this matter may lead implementations to utilize the data
> field in some unforeseen way.  Other implementations may then reject the
> attribute, applying general attribute processing rules, with an Attribute
> Length Error (RFC 4271 S6.3 paragraph 4.)
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6790 (draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding
> Publication Date    : November 2012
> Author(s)           : K. Kompella, J. Drake, S. Amante, W. Henderickx, L.
> Yong
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>



-- 
Kireeti