IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Tue, 28 February 2012 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBCF21F8714 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.738, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jkyb1mv9sGwF for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155B921F8503 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id q1SKmdNk007132; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:48:40 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:48:39 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-073.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.165]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.003; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:48:38 +0100
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: sarikaya@ieee.org, netext@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213
Thread-Index: AQHM9lkvoxcu4dPstkK9BSnAALF+HZZSUreA
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:48:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CB7298A0.1B50A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcexDHM99R-3FP9sJ20orQbZeoy=y91RLvFipxqhTR=kCw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <D6823F632A2127439A23FA8BD28AF22F@mgd.nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2012 20:48:39.0067 (UTC) FILETIME=[592F66B0:01CCF65A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:48:45 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email