[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (5205)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 14 March 2018 19:28 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE07126DEE; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X81BQRh_wZbZ; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6474A124BE8; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D731EB81A29; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: dkatz@juniper.net, dkatz@juniper.net, dward@juniper.net
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (5205)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180314192822.D731EB81A29@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:28:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/-5AgHXZcdZOxNS91rRjfVxXwwEk>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 19:28:25 -0000
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC5880, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5205 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> Date Reported: 2017-12-14 Held by: Alvaro Retana (IESG) Section: 6.8.4 Original Text ------------- If Demand mode is not active, and a period of time equal to the Detection Time passes without receiving a BFD Control packet from the remote system, and bfd.SessionState is Init or Up, the session has gone down -- the local system MUST set bfd.SessionState to Down and bfd.LocalDiag to 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). Corrected Text -------------- If Demand mode is not active, and a period of time equal to the Detection Time passes without receiving a BFD Control packet from the remote system, the session has gone down -- the local system MUST set bfd.SessionState to Down and bfd.LocalDiag to 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). Notes ----- This is based on an email I received from Anil Kumar of Nokia (anil.kumar_t_v@nokia.com). The language as originally written made a session timeout a no-op when in Down state. This was a gratuitous attempt to avoid a null state transition, but had the side effect of not setting the diag code (and otherwise is no different). This turns out to be problematic in the case where system "A" signals AdminDown, causing system "B" to respond with Down state. If the link then fails, the existing verbiage implies that "B" will not report the detection timeout, even locally. If the link fails in a unidirectional manner (such that "B" is deaf), B will give no indication of a timeout in its outgoing Control packets back to A (which can in fact hear them). Making the suggested change should ensure that the diagnostic code is always set to Detection Time Expired when Control packets stop arriving, even if the far end system was previously reporting AdminDown. -------------------------------------- RFC5880 (draft-ietf-bfd-base-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : D. Katz, D. Ward Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (5205) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (52… Ashesh Mishra
- RE: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC5880 (52… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)