[mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC6428 (6296)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 26 February 2021 21:36 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 1ACFE3A0D4A; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:36:40 -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_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 VZuS0AV7p4nG; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A71B3A0CBA; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 25770F40769; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:36:24 -0800 (PST)
To: in.sudipta.das@gmail.com, david.i.allan@ericsson.com, swallow@cisco.com, jdrake@juniper.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: db3546@att.com, iesg@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210226213624.25770F40769@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:36:24 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/u0r803bm9c-_KsQEzHDO0O_RQ6I>
Subject: [mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC6428 (6296)
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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:36:46 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6428, "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6296 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Sudipta Das <in.sudipta.das@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2020-09-29 Rejected by: Deborah Brungard (IESG) Section: 3.7 Original Text ------------- In coordinated mode, an implementation SHOULD NOT reset bfd.RemoteDiscr until it is exiting the DOWN state. Corrected Text -------------- In coordinated mode, an implementation SHOULD reset bfd.RemoteDiscr upon transitioning to the DOWN state, due to period of a Detection Time passing without the receipt of a valid, authenticated BFD packet from the remote system. Notes ----- This section seems to imply that when a BFD session, running in coordinated mode, experiences Control Detection Timer expiry, then it SHOULD retain the remote discriminator value *and* SHOULD also transmit the same value in Down packets. However, in the case when the remote system, configured in Passive role, has its discriminator gets changed (say, after a system reboot which had caused the Detection Timer expiry), it may reject these packets as the received Your Discriminator value is no longer valid for the current session. So the BFD session would never come back to Up state. In a second scenario (unrelated to above one), if the local system is configured in Passive role and experiences Control Detection Timer expiry, it may continue transmitting Down packets since the bfd.RemoteDiscr is not reset to zero. --VERIFIER NOTES-- This should be addressed by the working group (e.g., updating or revising the RFC). -------------------------------------- RFC6428 (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-06) -------------------------------------- Title : Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile Publication Date : November 2011 Author(s) : D. Allan, Ed., G. Swallow, Ed., J. Drake, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Multiprotocol Label Switching Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [mpls] [Errata Rejected] RFC6428 (6296) RFC Errata System