Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6987 (4685)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Sat, 07 May 2016 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4828A12D0C9 for <>; Sat, 7 May 2016 04:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t_H95dhC-zH8 for <>; Sat, 7 May 2016 04:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55AD412B028 for <>; Sat, 7 May 2016 04:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462621461; x=1463831061; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=rfHfsYGL+emqbAx434fYui7P81pK+TuTAQwNekDnw8I=; b=Z9J5ch6+pOyrKjAOo7Hztl8960sTv5onvnCfFIG7qtnq6VCTSyc8pduL LbPEFZLPbGj/GRQTFggq5Huqfcx9w3TzOHtEXH3iXRJHlz+iw1fbMaEJT pCtGKPGINQi4jrv3tqTYEI/fR/g1A/cncXMvSfYfhDmYwor3a7rsYmAQs A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,589,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="268901205"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 May 2016 11:44:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u47BiJuH026564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 May 2016 11:44:20 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 7 May 2016 07:44:19 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 7 May 2016 07:44:19 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Alexander Okonnikov <>, RFC Errata System <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>, "Liem Nguyen (lhnguyen)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <>, Russ White <>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6987 (4685)
Thread-Index: AQHRpyy7sXWdtAlpg0CzQKa04LilsJ+rIiKAgABFQgCAAfXTAA==
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 11:44:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <d78754d0-2b77-40f6-9816-14cfe8938b78@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <d78754d0-2b77-40f6-9816-14cfe8938b78@Spark>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3534BA1602E2aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6987 (4685)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 11:44:24 -0000

Hi Alex,

I don’t really agree with the precedent of going back and improving existing documents through errata. My view of errata is that it is meant to correct things that  are wrong rather than add improvements and clarifications. However, I’ll leave the decision to the ADs.

Note that we currently have several documents in the WG last call or “Publication Requested” state and it would be great if you’d focus your efforts there.


From: Alexander Okonnikov <<>>
Date: Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 9:48 PM
To: RFC Errata System <<>>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <<>>, "Liem Nguyen (lhnguyen)" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Alia Atlas <<>>, Deborah Brungard <<>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <<>>, Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6987 (4685)

Hello Acee,

Yes, it is addition, but I have no idea about another way how to add this clarification rather than via errata tool.

Thank you.

6 мая 2016 г., 4:40 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>>, писал:
The text below is technically correct (other than the grammar). However,
I’d view it more as additional information than an actual errata.


On 5/5/16, 8:17 PM, "RFC Errata System" <<>> wrote:

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6987,
"OSPF Stub Router Advertisement".

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Technical
Reported by: Alexander Okonnikov <<>

Section: 4

Original Text

Corrected Text
(At the end of the section)

If the stub router is located in transit area, crossed by virtual
link(s), latter will become inoperational in case the stub router is
on path between two virtual link endpoints - either due to only path
in transit area or due to topology changes which move stub router onto
this path.

Virtual links become inoperational in case path metric between two
endpoints is > 0xffff. Path metric of two or more links, one of which has
MaxLinkMetric, will inevitably exceed value 0xffff.

This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

RFC6987 (draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-04)
Title : OSPF Stub Router Advertisement
Publication Date : September 2013
Author(s) : A. Retana, L. Nguyen, A. Zinin, R. White, D.
Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP
Area : Routing
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG