Re: [pim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4601 (2927)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

How nice to hear someone say "blimey." I think my grandfather used to say it -
he was born in East London - but it is not in wide use :-)

I updated the type to Editorial. Thanks for coming back on the point.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ang Way Chuang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 09 August 2011 15:48
> To: RFC Errata System
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4601 (2927)
> 
> blimey, the type should be editorial not technical.
> 
> On 09/08/11 19:23, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4601,
> > "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
> Specification (Revised)".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4601&eid=2927
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Ang Way Chuang<[e-mail]>
> >
> > Section: 4.2.2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> >       void
> >
> >       Update_SPTbit(S,G,iif) {
> >
> >         if ( iif == RPF_interface(S)
> >
> >               AND JoinDesired(S,G) == TRUE
> >
> >               AND ( DirectlyConnected(S) == TRUE
> >
> >                     OR RPF_interface(S) != RPF_interface(RP(G))
> >
> >                     OR inherited_olist(S,G,rpt) == NULL
> >
> >                     OR ( ( RPF'(S,G) == RPF'(*,G) ) AND
> >
> >                          ( RPF'(S,G) != NULL ) )
> >
> >                     OR ( I_Am_Assert_Loser(S,G,iif) ) {
> >
> >            Set SPTbit(S,G) to TRUE
> >
> >         }
> >
> >       }
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> >       void
> >
> >       Update_SPTbit(S,G,iif) {
> >
> >         if ( iif == RPF_interface(S)
> >
> >               AND JoinDesired(S,G) == TRUE
> >
> >               AND ( DirectlyConnected(S) == TRUE
> >
> >                     OR RPF_interface(S) != RPF_interface(RP(G))
> >
> >                     OR inherited_olist(S,G,rpt) == NULL
> >
> >                     OR ( ( RPF'(S,G) == RPF'(*,G) ) AND
> >
> >                          ( RPF'(S,G) != NULL ) )
> >
> >                     OR ( I_Am_Assert_Loser(S,G,iif) ) ) ) {
> >
> >            Set SPTbit(S,G) to TRUE
> >
> >         }
> >
> >       }
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The logical evaluation is not properly enclosed. The RFC also doesn't
mention
> the reason for the extra checking on the RPF'(S,G) != NULL. It is non-obvious
to
> me. If the check on iif == RPF_interface(S) passes, how would there be any
> condition where RPF'(S,G) == NULL?
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This errata 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC4601 (draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-12)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol
> Specification (Revised)
> > Publication Date    : August 2006
> > Author(s)           : B. Fenner, M. Handley, H. Holbrook, I. Kouvelas
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Protocol Independent Multicast
> > Area                : Routing
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >