Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450)
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 04 March 2021 17:46 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 CDF2B3A1322 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 Poe9CibHilit for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F41FE3A0F9D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 124Hk7SX020241; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:46:07 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5012D22032; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:46:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39E5A22040; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:46:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.2.123]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 124Hk6ZR016284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:46:06 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Cc: Duane.Anderson@Edgewater.CA, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, loa@pi.nu, n.leymann@telekom.de, tsaad.net@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net
References: <20210304034311.3F0F2F4075A@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210304034311.3F0F2F4075A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 17:46:05 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <009e01d7111e$414dfc80$c3e9f580$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQGtBkwVjiCIkyyEdbXNYGaHMTbKIarIK0UQ
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.2.123
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25942.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.565-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.565-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25942.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--11.564900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFrxIbpQ8BhdbDjNGpWCIvfTqb3/o5s+OcMtferJ/d7Ab8x+ 8H48tJWJHgMJANv0t7MM8om66xwY+euGGicLyrxDAZ0lncqeHqEBBWeDxe1K0FSOymiJfTYXzDs KFzkZz6mwzsU+zDnPY2zt9L5ymRUj5WgosaQKXjnM1jffIgQXhjj0yt0EXOCQNYaOIfFzMKCkQT 0BTS8+iN2zHWxowgmGHYC8lLUL+v1sF8RbNQk8VznLV1rDXtKlCgbMtK8FnuGvloAnGr4qhmtOJ QXVIgjvkoEPf9Rwr1zN/fMwVwicm6BwZAWyQUloaDCzqDR7DPZDfut2Lc1Yh6TsE8Z/jrr+wfUY 2jhb1dvs7G+fGwReOyuMNn2/hYE1ojt0IHXLNv5umBHjt+Ks3rzETYfYS4xZv+qn2yUDl/4jw4m s98ZEXWT7jvFm0HKKxxgTHNrf6XlmUbCs3DbI1pK9FvwQx1hFa01mhnn7t6SMUViaYYbK3LFZt2 LwGofv6GkuiZw6C6FoSpiOpzuCdwqwLN+7YWFl2fov7TwhL8kj9+iycgC4IFn5jHI3F3NHI1j7t cek4Y6aJNrWjeLgy9MreTR8Cp69oDUBzrdYPnWHgJ7XaDMQWhokPBiBBj9/Pod6u9HXCGv01U0E 6fRBX7HLh/l2wCxV5uHfDu65BYfaVScbiljcbLuafOcb44DpEJBSu9U3+s/fUZT83lbkEJbPBsa BVobl4SzLEPEwHmIAnjbK7R7HApFu/pS/kmAgqjZ865FPtpoaIl76TulHEUpv30toAMb6kxjgoe qxnUoiyGc2HDwm6AUmBKaeWvI05duZXV3/h8ueAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCii7lXaIcF/Ww7M6dy uYKg/cUt5lc1lLgOMB0shqXhHpW0bngcnUHKFLQ8fLKSLGsvCKTOWUxHE6rLZ1ft7DFRv/eFZCJ Y7Cu
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/fbA0uePt7hU3GMwSzG7Fd07tVOM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450)
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 17:46:19 -0000
Hi, I looked through this and reread 3031 (if may have been a few years). While I can agree that there is "potential for confusion" in the use of "L2" and "L3", I agree with Stewart that not many people have reported being confused in the last 20 years (happy birthday, RFC 3031!). Perhaps an easier fix (if a fix is needed at all - I don't believe it is) is to remove the abbreviations "L2" and "L3". For "L2" 2.3 Remove L2 3.23 s/L2/layer 2/ twice For "L3" 2.2 s/L3/layer 3/ three times 2.3 Remove L3 3.17 s/L3/layer 3/ 4.15 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.1.1.2 s/L3/layer 3/ twice 5.1.2.2 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.1.3 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.1.4 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.1.4.2 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.1.5 s/L3/layer 3/ four times 5.1.5.1 s/L3/layer 3/ 5.2.2 s/L3/layer 3/ Maybe pop that list of changes in the report, mark it as Editorial, and move on? Cheers, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of RFC Errata System Sent: 04 March 2021 03:43 To: erosen@cisco.com; arun@force10networks.com; rcallon@juniper.net; db3546@att.com; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; martin.vigoureux@nokia.com; loa@pi.nu; n.leymann@telekom.de; tsaad.net@gmail.com Cc: Duane.Anderson@Edgewater.CA; mpls@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3031, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6450 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Duane L. Anderson <Duane.Anderson@Edgewater.CA> 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. 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. -------------------------------------- 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 mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6450) RFC Errata System
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [EXTERNAL] [Technical Errata Reported]… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3031 (6… Tarek Saad