Re: [mpls] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3031 (6450)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Sounds like editorial, hold for document update (which may never happen).

It is an error, but one of documentation rather than one of technology. The intent is clear and it has not resulted in an inter working or protocol issue in the last 25years, at least not one that has been highlighted.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Jul 2022, at 13:45, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> I think we should reject this errata, it has been running code for 25 years or more, no problems reported. It is also not local to RFC 3031, the MPLS working group or the IETF.
> 
> RFC Editor (Errata System),
> 
> I think Andrew need to OK this, but if not necessary just go and reject.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> PS
> 
> THe addresses to Eric, Ross and Arun are likely not current, but I don't think we need to consult them.
> 
>> On 2022-05-26 15:56, RFC Errata System wrote:
>> The following errata report has been held for document update
>> for RFC3031, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture".
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6450
>> --------------------------------------
>> Status: Held for Document Update
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Duane L. Anderson <[e-mail]>
>> Date Reported: 2021-03-0
>> Held by: Andrew Alston (IESG)
>> Section: GLOBAL
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> 2.2. Terminology defines the terms
>>         Layer 2         layer 2 the protocol layer under layer 3
>>                         (which therefore offers the services used by layer 3)
>>         Layer 3         the protocol layer at which IP and its associated
>>                         routing protocols operate
>> 2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations defines
>>         L2              Layer 2
>>         L3              Layer 3
>> However, in 3.14. Scope and Uniqueness of Labels, 4.3. Label Stacks and Implicit Peering, 4.5. LSP Trees as Multipoint-to-Point Entities, and 4.6. LSP Tunneling between BGP Border Routers, L1, L2 and L3 are used as differentiating names for certain labels attached to packets.
>> Of course, in 3.23. Time-to-Live (TTL), L2 is used to refer to layer 2 frame header and to a layer 2 switch, which is correct.
>> However, in 4.3. Label Stacks and Implicit Peering, the term level 1 is used to refer to the LIFO (stack) ordinal number of a label then named L1 and given a protocol layer 2 protocol of layer 2 (L2). Furthermore, labels named L2 and then L1 are pushed onto the stack of labels prefixed to the packet. To top it all off the packet's stack attribute as protocol level 2 (L2).
>> Of course, in 3.17. LSP Next Hop, 4.1.5. The Implicit NULL Label, 5.1.1.2. PushConditional, 5.1.1.4. PulledConditional, 5.1.2.2. RequestWhenNeeded, 5.1.3. Upstream LSR: NotAvailable Procedure, 5.1.4. Upstream LSR: Release Procedure, 5.1.4.2. NoReleaseOnChange, 5.1.5. Upstream LSR: labelUse Procedure, 5.2.2. Schemes for LSRs that do not Support Label Merging, refer to L3 meaning level 3, which is correct.
>> Furthermore, in 3.1. Labels, 3.2. Upstream and Downstream LSRs, 3.4. Label Assignment and Distribution, 3.5. Attributes of a Label Binding, 3.14. Scope and Uniqueness of Labels, 4.1.2.2. Distributing Labels, 5.1.5. Upstream LSR: labelUse Procedure, 5.1.5.2. UseIfLoopNotDetected, 5.1.6. Downstream LSR: Withdraw Procedure
>>  * L is used as a name for a certain label attached to packet, and
>>  * L is used as a arbitrary value assigned to a label attached to a packet
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> I have not provided any corrected text as I've literally "highlighted" 44 places in a pdf format file of RFC 3031 that are ambiguous.
>> As there is no facility to attach a file to this Report Errata for RFC3031 form, i will send the file commented pdf file upon request.
>> Notes
>> -----
>> My rational for highlighting (no pun intended) these problems is that the overloading of the L2, L3 abbreviations layer 2 and layer 3, with the names L1, L2, L3 and L for labels, plus the use of L1 and L2 as indexed names for the ordinal position of a label prefixed to a payload, then to use L2 and L3 as to actually mean layer 2 and layer is uh ... sloppy.
>> Honestly, I can't understand how RFC 3031 has been posted for twenty years and that it is on the Standards Track and no one has found these problems.
>> Its similar to when someone publishes a mathematical treatise and use the same set of variable names {x, y, z, t} over and over again in different contexts spread throughout the paper. Its intractable and practically gibberish.
>> I apologize if my criticism is harsh regarding this problem but I spent a considerable amount of my time reading this document trying to make sense of it before I realized that the fault is not mine but it is of the document.
>> [Andrew] This seems to wide and generalized to be a simple errata, as such I am marking this as held for document update.
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC3031 (draft-ietf-mpls-arch-06)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
>> Publication Date    : January 2001
>> Author(s)           : E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Multiprotocol Label Switching
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls