Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Tue, 28 February 2012 21:19 UTC

From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
Thread-Topic: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213
Thread-Index: AQHM9lkvoxcu4dPstkK9BSnAALF+HZZSUreAgABor4D//5/lgA==
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:19:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CB72A09F.1B528%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAceLya=5Lwv4SXBNicw6sj55699fNjdxZEqJ75uN2JjHBA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-ID: <2308761166C98D42B0DF384D5026DD22@mgd.nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213
Precedence: list

Agree...
Lets put some alternative text to the list first to correct the problem
and then take it to the RFC editor after we have consensus.
Errata can be handled thru: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

-Raj

On 2/28/12 3:03 PM, "ext Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Raj,
>
>The same error is repeated in Section 8.2 as well.
>There is no errata on RFC 5213 as of today, why not report these two?
>
>No one is perfect :-).
>
>Behcet
>
>On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:48 PM,  <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Behcet,
>>
>> The text in the section is a bit misleading and could have been written
>> better.
>> The list that is mentioned in "the following mobility options are
>>validŠ."
>> is the one which which includes the HNP option as well. It is clear that
>> the HNP option can have multiple instances whereas the other options can
>> be either one or zero.
>>
>> Hence I don't think that there is a need to do an errata unless it is a
>> cause of confusion to implementers.
>>
>> -Raj
>>
>> On 2/28/12 2:40 PM, "ext Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I would like to claim errate on RFC 5213 as follows:
>>>
>>>In Section 8.1
>>>on Mobility Options, the paragraph:
>>>
>>>As per this specification, the following mobility options are
>>>      valid in a Proxy Binding Update message.  These options can be
>>>      present in the message in any order.  There can be one or more
>>>      instances of the Home Network Prefix options present in the
>>>      message.  However, there cannot be more than one instance of any
>>>      of the following options.
>>>
>>>         Mobile Node Identifier option
>>>
>>>         Home Network Prefix option
>>>
>>>         Handoff Indicator option
>>>
>>>         Access Technology Type option
>>>
>>>         Timestamp option
>>>
>>>         Mobile Node Link-layer Identifier option
>>>
>>>         Link-local Address option
>>>
>>>While the text allows one or more instances of HNP, the list that just
>>>follows does not.
>>>I think that Home Network Prefix option should be deleted from the list.
>>>
>>>How to report this errata to IETF?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Behcet
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>netext mailing list
>>>netext@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>

[netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Behcet Sarikaya
Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Basavaraj.Patil
Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Behcet Sarikaya
Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Basavaraj.Patil
Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Behcet Sarikaya
Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213 Sri Gundavelli