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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 26 April 2020 04:37 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 467F63A00C0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:42 -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 qp4_VqX4len8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:40 -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 E56EB3A0A90 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:37:39 -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 EE04C321491; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 06:37:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 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: mpls@ietf.org
References: <20200413111718.3C7F4F40721@rfc-editor.org> <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <ae2c36a0-8d3e-d086-239e-e15742a23111@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 12:37:28 +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: <dfc34bf1-6cf1-2c2a-0014-608f2aa29bcb@pi.nu>
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/OppefYZJ_3W8O8_tL0drc7EubOA>
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: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 04:37:43 -0000

Deborah,

Can we close this??

/Loa

On 13/04/2020 22:15, Loa Andersson wrote:
> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6101
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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