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

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 26 May 2022 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
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 5D728C1850DB; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LyWYQnuGfy1u; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0597CC1850EF; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id BA06D1846E8; Thu, 26 May 2022 06:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: Duane.Anderson@Edgewater.CA, erosen@cisco.com, arun@force10networks.com, rcallon@juniper.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, iesg@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20220526135633.BA06D1846E8@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 06:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nWpmF-dL6UNnD8w335HHh649xgI>
Subject: [mpls] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC3031 (6450)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 26 May 2022 13:56:38 -0000

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 <Duane.Anderson@Edgewater.CA>
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