Re: [netext] Errata on RFC 5213

Hi Behcet,

There are two parts to it. The options that are considered valid in PBU/PBA
and the single instance count requirement for the options and one special
case. So, I agree, its bit on the border line with respect to how the text
came out. We could have simply not talked about the instance count validity.
But, given that the rest of the text is consistent with respect to the
instances of each option that are allowed, the overall meaning of the text
is still clear, IMO. But, we can discuss further.

Regards
Sri

On 2/28/12 12:48 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <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 mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext