[Roll] [Errata Verified] RFC6719 (7773)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 07 February 2024 18:18 UTC

To: dominique.barthel@orange.com, gnawali@cs.uh.edu, pal@cs.stanford.edu
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240207181819.04B8918FA484@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 10:18:18 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/w8-evZXoxXuriwwH5qSk24gZlNQ>
Subject: [Roll] [Errata Verified] RFC6719 (7773)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been verified for RFC6719,
"The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7773

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Dominique Barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
Date Reported: 2024-01-22
Verified by: John Scudder (IESG)

Section: 2.2

Original Text
-------------
If the cost 
of the path through the preferred parent and the worst parent is too 
large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.

Corrected Text
--------------
If the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent 
and the worst parent is too large, a node MAY keep a smaller parent 
set than PARENT_SET_SIZE.



Notes
-----
This sentence is meant to explain that there is no benefit in keeping in the parent set neighbors that have too high a path cost compared to that of the preferred parent.
The original text omits the notion of difference in cost. It also contains a circular reference: indeed, the worst parent is the neighbor within the parent set that has the highest cost.

Verifier's note: the submitter also included this option:

```
or better yet

"A node MAY keep a parent set smaller than PARENT_SET_SIZE, so that 
the difference in cost of the paths through the preferred parent and 
the worst parent is not too large."
```

I agree this is a clearer way to express the concept and I think it should be considered if there's ever a bis prepared of the spec, however, I elected to verify the first option given because it represents the minimal change needed to make the document correct.

--------------------------------------
RFC6719 (draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function
Publication Date    : September 2012
Author(s)           : O. Gnawali, P. Levis
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

[Roll] [Errata Verified] RFC6719 (7773) RFC Errata System