Re: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>
To: "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:23


> Dear all,
>
> The facts:
> - The MIB doctors advised not to publish MIB modules under snmpModules
> any longer. IANA updated the registry information. See
>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-number
s-61
> - RFC 7360 is published with a mistake. The MIB module should have
been
> published under mib-2.235 (as advised by the MIB doctors) but the
> document mentions: snmpModules.235

Benoit

Mutter, mutter: it is a shame that the MIB Doctors did not tell us of
this change!

I carefully checked the I-D when it first appeared and was satisfied
that the assignment was in exactly the right place, using all the
information available to me so I think that the I-D was spot on.  And
that it remained correct thoughout its life.

And of course we are now wasting valuable resources making a 'right'
'wrong'!

Is there anything else we have not been told, by e-mail, RFC or I-D,
that might waste our time in future:-(

Tom Petch

> - The IANA registry is actually correct. snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB is under
> mib-2.235
> See http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml
> - Solving this issue with an errata doesn't work: indeed MIB modules
are
> extracted from RFC, and used within scripts.
>
> Discussing with Michelle (IANA) and the IESG, we had no other choices
> than obsoleting this RFC and re-issuing a new one. Hence this errata
and
> draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-00.
>
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-n
ew/>
>
> One change to keep in mind for the next version:
> OLD:
>
>         REVISION    "201508130000Z"       -- 13 August 2015, midnight
>         DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC 7630
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>"
>     ::= { snmpModules 235 }
>
> NEW:
>
>         REVISION     ... new date
>         DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC xxxx
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7630>"
>     ::= { mib-2 235 }
>
> The way forward is to publish a new draft ASAP with the above
> correction, to have a one week IETF LC, and to publish the new RFC. At
> that point (and not before because we don't have a replacement RFC),
we
> will obsolete RFC 7360.
>
> Regards, Benoit
> > The following errata report has been verified for RFC7630,
> > "HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the User-based Security
Model (USM) for SNMPv3".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7630&eid=4509
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Status: Verified
> > Type: Technical
> >
> > Reported by: Johannes Merkle <[e-mail]>
> > Date Reported: 2015-10-20
> > Verified by: Benoit Claise (IESG)
> >
> > Section: 8 and 10
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > snmpModules 235
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > mib-2 235
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > IANA registered snmpUsmHmacSha2MIB under mib-2.235 (as advised by
the MIB doctors), but the document mentions snmpModules.235
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC7630 (draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-06)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in the
User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3
> > Publication Date    : October 2015
> > Author(s)           : J. Merkle, Ed., M. Lochter
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Operations and Management Area Working Group
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > .
> >
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>